Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present an explanatory memorandum to the bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am somewhat embarrassed, which is rare, although the shadow minister might think otherwise. At some point I may have some—

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps I could assist the Attorney-General by giving my speech first while he finds his speech. I must say that on this occasion I have much sympathy with the Attorney, because the times have changed so often for when this bill was going to be on that we had some significant problems ourselves. If you are now in possession of your speech, I will let—

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The purpose of the Crimes Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Act 2001 was to allow a national DNA database to be established. Various states and territories, however, subsequently expressed concern that under this legislation it is unclear whether they can lawfully transfer DNA profiles from their DNA databases to the Commonwealth. There is also concern about the lawfulness of the Commonwealth disclosing DNA profile information that it holds to the states and territories.

The Commonwealth never held these concerns. However, these amendments to the Crimes Act will clarify for the states and territories that the transfer of information for interjurisdictional DNA matching is lawful. These amendments will go thus some way to allaying the concerns of the states and territories and to encourage all corresponding law jurisdictions within Australia to commit to implementing interjurisdictional DNA profile matching. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is nice on occasion to see that the government has the same difficulties that we in opposition do with the confusion sometimes of these matters between the houses. I rise to speak on the Crimes Act Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Bill (No. 1) 2006. This bill amends and clarifies part 1D of the Crimes Act to take account of concerns held by the state governments that they are currently not able to fully implement the NCIDD due to legal issues surrounding the sharing and transfer of data.

The bill will hopefully be one of the last planks in the creation of the national DNA database—or the National Criminal Investigation DNA Database, as NCIDD stands for—removing one of the remaining legal obstacles to the creation of the database. The bill inserts a new provision into the Crimes Act which provides for the creation of the database, as well as making a number of other amendments in order to clarify various points of law and amend drafting errors.

The database was one of several that CrimTrac was tasked with building when the agency was first established in 1998. The object was to create a new DNA database containing DNA profiles from all Australian jurisdictions and a database that could be accessed by Australian police across all jurisdictions. CrimTrac’s annual report describes the purpose of the database as providing:

... police with access to a national DNA database and the capability to conduct rapid, automated inter-jurisdiction and intra-jurisdiction DNA profile matching.

The database contains samples of DNA taken from crime scenes and samples of DNA taken from criminals. The object, very basically, was to allow a police officer in Queensland to take a DNA sample from a crime scene, perform a search on the database and then discover, for instance, that his or her profile of DNA matched a profile that had been entered onto the database in South Australia or Victoria.

The benefits of such a scheme are immediately obvious. More criminals will be caught, and that is of course a great comfort to the victims of crime and the family members who are left to support, care for and sometimes even grieve for them. Such schemes should deliver a better justice outcome as time goes by, in that fewer innocent people will be convicted of crimes they did not commit.

The Labor Party supports this scheme. We are very enthusiastic about it, as it clearly has the potential to be of enormous benefit in the fight against crime. Properly used, it can become a key tool for law enforcement. Unfortunately, as with most of CrimTrac’s databases, it has got off to a rocky start. To be fair, I will note that the ANAO report into CrimTrac from 2004-05 found that the problems were mainly legislative in nature. By virtue of the fact that it attempts to be a national DNA database, it also has to navigate a minefield of differing legislation, memorandums of understanding and other agreements.

Currently, it is used by states for varying purposes. New South Wales, the Commonwealth, the ACT and Tasmania use the database but only for intrajurisdictional matching—that is, matching only within their jurisdictions. Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia use, to various degrees, interjurisdictional matching. However, as I have already said, the vision of the database as a truly national database has not yet been realised.

The legislation before us today seeks to overcome one of the remaining legislative impediments to interjurisdictional data matching. A number of state governments currently hold reservations about the legality of the transfer of information from their databases to the national database—and vice versa—and whether information held by the states could be lawfully disclosed.

The legal question, as it was put in the Senate committee report, was based on the status of the national database. Is it a Commonwealth database? Is it an amalgam of state and territory databases? The legislation before us today seeks to answer that question and to remove, hopefully, the last or one of the last legislative impediments to cross-jurisdictional data matching. As noted above, the legislation itself makes a number of changes to the Crimes Act to clarify the legislation and to make one substantive change to allow the presence of a police officer at forensic examinations where samples are gathered.

The bill proposes to insert a new section 23YDACA—I can see a renumbering process having to be before us at some time in the future—into the Crimes Act. It is a provision which specifically allows for the creation of the national database, based on the integration of information resident on the Commonwealth DNA databases, either in whole or in part, and the state and territory DNA databases, again, either in whole or in part. The integration of the state, territory and Commonwealth databases and information contained on those databases is now specifically provided for in the legislation. The item also provides that the NCIDD may be accessed in part by state and Commonwealth oversight and by other authorities for the purpose of conducting an audit.

While Labor agrees with the sentiment of this section, a problem with it was noted in a submission from the Privacy Commissioner of New South Wales during the committee process in that the word ‘audit’ was not wide enough to encompass the full range of activities for which the NCIDD may need to be accessed. The commissioner identified that their access of the database would be for the purposes of conducting an investigation rather than an audit. This leads to some confusion about whether such entities will be able to access the database. To that end, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has recommended an alteration to this section to ensure that it is clear that entities such as the privacy commissioner can access the database for reasons other than strictly to conduct audits.

The bill makes a number of alterations to existing sections. These are minor items which alter various sections of the act—for example, to alter the phrase ‘DNA database system’ to ‘Commonwealth DNA database system’ and to clarify the distinction between the Commonwealth DNA database and the state and territory DNA databases.

Finally, the bill proposes an amendment which would allow the presence of a prison officer while forensic samples are taken from a prisoner. Currently, the presence of constables, medical practitioners, dentists and, in certain cases, a legal representative is allowed. The move to allow for the presence of a prison officer during these procedures is sensible and, again, one that the Labor Party supports.

As this chamber might be aware, the bill has already been examined by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which, overall, endorsed the bill, stating in its report that the committee considered ‘the bill will successfully resolve any lingering legal impediments to the transfer of information to and from the database,’ subject of course to the enactment of complementary legislation by the state governments. Aside from supporting the bill, the legal and constitutional committee made only one further recommendation, which was to alter section 23YDACA(2). The problem with this section of the bill as it stood in the other place has already been touched upon in my speech:  there was confusion as to whether or not oversight bodies could access the database for reasons other than conducting audits. Oversight bodies may have legitimate reasons to wish to access the database for oversight purposes which are not necessarily audits. As such, the committee recommended that the proposed subsection be amended to clarify the access rights for investigating agencies. This was a technical recommendation to ensure that the bill operates as it was intended rather than to alter the operation of the bill. It was agreed to and the government moved amendments in the committee stage in the other place to give effect to this recommendation.

In conclusion, as I said at the start of my speech, the national database, when fully functional, will become an invaluable tool for law enforcement agencies across Australia. The Labor Party fully supports the creation of this database and looks forward to its full operation across all state and territory jurisdictions along with the Commonwealth. As such, Labor supports the bill and commends it to the House.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be short in my comments. There is bipartisan support for the Crimes Act Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Bill (No. 1) 2006 and for very good reasons. The bill demonstrates the government’s ongoing commitment to the fight against crime by making this facilitation. It will provide very valuable investigative information to law enforcement agencies right across Australia. I note that Australia will probably be light years ahead of the United States in relation to the sharing of information to enable us to better fight crime.

I know that the states and territories have expressed some concerns about the sharing of this information and the legality under the current legislation. The government did not have that view, but to put the matter finally at rest we have this bill before the House today. This will ensure that interjurisdictional DNA profile matching can occur.

A couple of years ago I took the trouble to satisfy myself that the security and integrity of these DNA databases was okay. I came away absolutely satisfied that that was the case. There were some concerns in the community at the time that DNA information stored by agencies could be used for purposes other than what they were put in place for. There were suggestions that, for example, if you had a person’s DNA, you would be able to work out what their medical risks were in the future and that insurance companies would be very interested in that sort of information. But I am indeed satisfied of the integrity of the databases that are held in the country today.

I would in fact go further in relation to DNA databases. I have long been on the public record arguing for every person’s DNA in Australia to be recorded, to be available for use in relation to crime issues and also for identification. From time to time there are horrific road accidents, for example, or there are people who lose their mind and do not know who or where they are. A national DNA database could well be used to identify those people and put their identification beyond doubt.

Australia, perhaps, is not quite ready for that yet, but the time will come. When it comes, it will be a very valuable tool for the police forces of Australia. I know the police forces would like to see it and strongly support it right now. I think the community is turning around. They are beginning to realise that these sorts of databases do not get misused. They are used for the purposes that they were designed for. I certainly wanted to add my support to this bill. I am very much in favour of our commitment to fighting crime through these modern scientific methods.

Debate interrupted.

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Crimes Act Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Bill (No. 1) 2006. This bill, as we have heard, sets out to ensure that interjurisdictional DNA profile matching using the National Criminal Investigation DNA Database, NCIDD, may be implemented by all Australian jurisdictions.

The bill addresses specific impediments raised by states and territories which have previously delayed complete interjurisdictional DNA profile matching. The main problem is that, under current legislation, states and territories cannot transfer DNA profiles from their individual DNA databases to the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth cannot disclose DNA profile information that it holds to the states and territories. Clearly, this is a ridiculous situation and something that needs to be addressed, and I am very pleased it will be addressed in this particular bill.

Other amendments will seek to ensure that the Commonwealth DNA database is clearly distinguished from the various state and territory databases. The bill will also allow prison officers to be present if the law of the relevant state or territory allows or requires such a presence while a forensic procedure is carried out on a suspect. This will ensure the safety and security of those who carry out forensic procedures. This is a sensible measure and one that Labor obviously supports. In essence, the bill seeks to create the legislative framework for the realisation of a truly national DNA database and specifically aims to remove any outstanding barriers to a fully functional, fully integrated national DNA profiling system.

The establishment of such a national system is, sadly, long overdue. For example, the agency which will have carriage of the national database, CrimTrac, was conceived some six years ago. The National Exchange of Police Information, the NEPI, which was the predecessor of CrimTrac, was established in March 1990 during an agreement signed by Commonwealth, state and territory governments. The NEPI’s aims were to provide cost-effective services for the improvement of policing across Australia, acknowledging that our geography and federal system of governance provide significant challenges for law enforcement agencies. The NEPI’s successor, CrimTrac, built on the earlier success of this national resource and information sharing arrangement with access to DNA samples—a science which has seen such a dramatic boom in technology over the past decade or so—which are seen as a key part of its operations.

CrimTrac’s role is to support Australia’s police services through the provision of information and investigative tools that will accelerate the identification of suspects of crimes, clear the innocent, shorten crime investigation times and result in higher clearance rates. Obviously, higher clearance rates mean that many of the crimes that are unsolved at the moment will actually be solved because we will be able to go back, use previous DNA information and nab some suspects who we thought had committed crimes that we had not actually been able to pin on them in the past. So I think this is a very positive move.

The agency is underpinned by an intergovernmental agreement signed by the Commonwealth Minister for Justice and Customs and all police ministers across Australia. The establishment of a National Criminal Investigation DNA Database as part of CrimTrac’s activities was intended to facilitate access for all police forces to DNA samples from interstate prisoners or unsolved crime scenes. Importantly, as stated in CrimTrac’s 2005-06 annual report, the NCIDD does not contain personal information as defined in the Commonwealth Privacy Act 1988. Each profile entered onto the NCIDD has a unique identifier which cannot be linked by CrimTrac to information that will identify an individual. The annual report states:

DNA person profiles are automatically removed from NCIDD when predetermined destruction dates are specified on the system. The profiles associated with an index are set out in the legislation: for example, crime scene, offender, or suspect.

Only the forensic laboratory in the police agency that supplied the identifier can identify individual names and circumstances associated with the profile. No trace of the profile or associated match results remain on the database.

Unfortunately, movement towards the provisions in this bill before the House has been stymied, I believe, because of a lack of ministerial interest at a federal level. It is well known that when the current immigration minister, Senator Vanstone, left the justice ministry, she left the portfolio in a total shambles. Apart from a fondness for the canine Customs personnel, she showed little interest in the portfolio and its affairs were left in total disarray. Unfortunately, the move towards comprehensive national DNA profiling and data sharing was a victim of Senator Vanstone’s lack of interest and failure to provide leadership to the states on these very important issues.

The sharing of DNA profiles between jurisdictions can be effective in both incriminating and, of course, exonerating suspects. When CrimTrac was officially launched, it was announced:

The technology and hardware needed to set-up the DNA database is now on-line and operational. DNA samples in most States and Territories are now being taken and will be loaded onto the database in coming weeks. The system is expected to hold about 25,000 DNA profiles in the first year.

This, of course, is yet to pass. Delays persist with implementing the National Criminal Investigation DNA Database because of the lack of uniformity throughout Australia and legislation and procedures governing DNA. It is currently used by the states for varying purposes. The Commonwealth, the ACT, New South Wales and Tasmania use the NCIDD but only for intrajurisdictional matching. Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland use interjurisdictional matching to various degrees. There are still differences amongst the states and territories in the categorisation of DNA samples, the powers of police to take samples and the rules for matching and retaining samples. This can cause problems in court if DNA evidence is matched across borders.

Part 1D of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 deals with forensic procedures, particularly the use of DNA material for law enforcement purposes. It was inserted into the Crimes Act in 1998 and was based on the model forensic provisions developed by the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee, the MCCOC, of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The primary purpose of part 1D is to regulate the collection, storage and use of DNA samples and profiles.

An independent review of part 1D of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 was conducted and published in March 2003. It was chaired by Tom Sherman AO, previously the Australian Government Solicitor and the Chairman of the National Crime Authority. The other members of the review were the federal Privacy Commissioner, the Senior Assistant Ombudsman, the General Manager of the Forensic Services Branch of the Australian Federal Police and the Deputy Director of the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The 2003 report concluded:

The major deficiency identified by the Review is that the national system is not yet operational and only one jurisdiction (NSW) had loaded profiles onto the relevant CrimTrac database known as the National Criminal Investigation DNA Database (NCIDD). The Review calls for redoubled efforts on the part of the Commonwealth, the States and Territories to move quickly to negotiate the relevant arrangements which are necessary to make the system fully operational.

As previous speakers on this side have made clear, Labor support the scheme and we welcome it. My home state, Western Australia, has been an enthusiastic supporter of the scheme and, I am proud to say, an early pioneer of intrajurisdictional matching. Indeed, when Western Australia and Queensland linked their DNA databases on 10 June last year, DNA from 14 unsolved crimes in Queensland was matched within days to DNA from Western Australia, allowing police to review the crimes and make arrests.

Earlier this year it was reported that WA have some 55,000 DNA samples on the state database and that DNA matching within the state and with Queensland led to charges being laid for 1,213 unsolved crimes since July 2002. Yes, we caught up with those crafty Queenslanders when they snuck off home, and it was great to see that particular process in use. Those crimes were also of a very serious nature. They included rape, serious assault and offences that had remained unsolved for more than a decade.

Western Australia continues to lead the way in DNA technology. Members may be interested to know that last year the Western Australian government, in an Australian first, distributed DNA kits to Perth bus drivers to help solve crimes on Perth’s buses. Drivers are able to capture evidence to help identify and prosecute the bus louts responsible for assaults on drivers.

I know there have been some legislative hurdles in various states which have delayed the implementation of the database, but quite frankly this is a situation that required national leadership from the federal government and, as I have said, for a period at least, that was sorely lacking. I am concerned that the federal government has had the audacity to criticise various states for the delay. That really takes some front. After all, seven years after it was announced that we would have a national missing persons database, the federal government has failed to deliver on this desperately needed initiative.

I refer to an editorial in the Age newspaper in July about the detention of Ms Cornelia Rau. The editorial states:

It seems we have learned little from the debacle that so recently caused national shame, the detention of Cornelia Rau. Ms Rau had been placed on a missing persons register in August 2004 and in November that year NSW police launched an appeal to locate her. Even with all this publicity, she remained incarcerated in Baxter Detention Centre for 10 months.

The Palmer inquiry into her case recommended the establishment of a national missing persons database. There has been little progress towards implementing this. It is unforgivable that, in the 21st century when technology makes it possible to track people and events across the globe, a further 49 bodies await identification in Victoria while families are left to wonder what has become of one of their own.

I do not need to remind the House that the immigration minister and the department were hardly revealed in good light by the Rau affair.

The priorities of the federal government are really quite amazing. On one hand we are told by the industry minister that in just 10 years time some Australians could be waking up next door to a nuclear reactor. We all know that it took just a matter of months after the 2004 election for the Howard government to fundamentally alter the constitutional tradition of states rights with its incorporation of industrial relations under the Corporations Act. Yet when it comes to an issue such as the national missing persons database, implementing a national system that might actually do some good, it is too hard.

Australia’s population is highly mobile, as we see today as workers move around the country to take advantage of economic opportunities. This means that our criminals are mobile too. Even as far back as the 1880s the Kelly Gang operated across state borders, demonstrating the need for cooperation between states. Well-known criminals have operated in many states across the country. The institutional framework for forensic information as foreshadowed in this bill will ensure that police can become more effective. This bill will improve the effectiveness of policing in Australia and should be supported. I commend the bill to the House.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Crimes Act Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Bill (No. 1) 2006. I believe it is very important to provide our police with the best and most modern tools available, because that is what the community expects of us. I say that for a number of reasons, not least for the fact that for the six or seven years prior to coming to this place I spent much of my time representing police officers from each of the states and territories, including the AFP. That work was not just in relation to industrial relations; it was in relation to ensuring that the issues of the police profession were acknowledged and in pursuing the best and most appropriate tools for our working police officers to ensure that they were in the best position possible to protect the community, as they are so charged to do.

As all members would be aware, the community expectation of our police has certainly changed. We have seen that come out of a raft of inquiries, whether in respect of integrity or whatever. Certainly the expectation that the community have of their police force to keep them safe is at an all-time high. The community, quite frankly, are not unreasonable in that expectation and it falls on government to actually make sure that their police forces are equipped with the most modern tools of the trade. I do not believe that is unreasonable. In my first speech, which I delivered in this House some 18 months ago, I made the point that, whilst law and order are ostensibly state and territory based issues, there are certainly contemporary grounds now for the Commonwealth to become more involved both in respect of coordination and in respect of providing resources. The facts are that criminals know no bounds. They do not know anything about geographical boundaries. As a matter of fact, they will move conveniently from one jurisdiction to another. Therefore, it is appropriate that the Commonwealth does have a role in coordinating and assisting state and territory jurisdictions in the administration of the respective criminal acts and in making sure that the police officers who are defending the communities across the Commonwealth are adequately provided with the resources to do the job in a contemporary society.

The purpose of this bill before the Main Committee is to amend the Crimes Act to ensure that interjurisdictional DNA profile matching, using the National Criminal Investigation DNA Database, NCIDD, may be implemented for all corresponding jurisdictions within the Commonwealth. As you have heard from various speakers before me, Mr Deputy Speaker, forensic sampling has become a critical tool of modern policing. Many Australians watch crime shows now with some regularity and they would know only too well that solving crimes these days tends to have a fair bit to do with the collection and analysis of forensic data. While the process in real life policing throughout the country may differ slightly from what you might see on CSI and other programs, nevertheless, from my experience and involvement with the various police forces, I know the critical nature of access to forensic data in resolving crimes.

There are some doubts about the ability of the current legislation to allow the sharing and transfer of data between state and territory databases and the Commonwealth. That is regrettable. I do not think any particular parties set out to instil these differences. But provided there is some doubt in it—and that does ensure that there is less reliance on the use of the national database—that is not good for policing and it is certainly not good for communities. Naturally, this would serve to be a particularly large impediment across jurisdictions in DNA data matching, particularly if we are talking about admissibility in terms of the way data is collected, how it is analysed and therefore stored in the database, and whether it is admissible in certain jurisdictions.

I am sure that all members are aware of CrimTrac. CrimTrac is a Commonwealth agency responsible for a number of programs designed to provide national policing information services, investigation tools and national criminal history record checks. CrimTrac is also charged to manage the National Criminal Investigation DNA Database. Along with other members of the Parliamentary Joint Statutory Committee on the Australian Crime Commission, I had the opportunity to visit CrimTrac. As I prefaced in my remarks, I have had considerable involvement with the respective policing agencies across this country and I have to say that that visit did open my eyes in terms of the resources we have in CrimTrac.

CrimTrac, under its current CEO, Ben McDevitt, provides policing with a very professional capability. It certainly has a significant and powerful computer capability, but in terms of being able to deliver on results, I have to say that this organisation is probably second to none. CrimTrac provides support to Australian law enforcement generally, regardless of jurisdictions. Through the development, delivery and maintenance of modern, high-quality rapid response, electronic policing information and investigative tools, it has achieved much, and through cooperation and collaborative partnering with the various police forces that operate as stakeholders throughout the country.

The principal system that is operated by CrimTrac is the National Criminal Investigation DNA Database, which is subject to these matters before us. In addition to that there is the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System, the CrimTrac Police Reference System and the National Criminal History Record Checking Services. These are extraordinarily powerful tools in terms of contemporary policing.

While the National Criminal Investigation DNA Database got off to a very slow start—and it will not help any of us to start pointing a finger at state or territory jurisdictions—I have to say it has been proving its worth, and we are seeing that in terms of the records that are now being collected and used. As at June 2005, there were more than 152,000 records on the database. There were more than 41,000 crime scene records, 38,000 offender or serious offender records, nearly 59,000 suspect records and more than 14,000 records offered by volunteers—which is always very important when eliminating suspects. Believe it or not, people sometimes are persuaded to come along and volunteer DNA for the database for that very purpose.

With each additional record, the database becomes a more important tool in policing. That is why the changes before us today are so important. It is not so much that it is going to be managed by the Commonwealth—and bear in mind that the Commonwealth did fund the establishment of the DNA database to the tune of about $50 million—but to some extent this is the Commonwealth fulfilling a responsibility in terms of law and order. It is not that it is a responsibility imposed on the Commonwealth through the Constitution, of course, but, as I said earlier, the nature of criminality these days means that it does not know geographical boundaries. We do need to have the most modern tools available to our police if they are to be able to do their work, which is to protect the communities they are charged to serve.

As I mentioned earlier, in dealing with the interjurisdictional nature of collecting this forensic data, it is regrettable that it has got off to a slow start. I do not know if there are figures available about how many cases have possibly been jeopardised because of that, in terms of apprehending serious offenders, but I dare say that if the system is not working to the satisfaction of all stakeholders—and that is each of the states and territories and the Commonwealth—then the system is not working at all. This amendment bill before us today does put that beyond doubt, certainly to the satisfaction of each of the states and territories, which has to be a very good thing for criminal justice throughout this country. The bill before us today clarifies the points that have been raised by some of the states and territories, and I think it does now move to put it beyond doubt.

The object of the bill is to remove any impediment to the creation and use of the National Criminal Investigation DNA Database. I think it should be understood how this database actually works. This is not about the Commonwealth making these checks and identifying from the analysis criminals or discounting criminal activity from various people. The Commonwealth is managing a national database—a collection of state DNA databases, if you like. A state or territory police jurisdiction will be capable of accessing the database to see whether there is a match. If there is a match, they will be directed to which state or territory the match lines up with. That is where it is important.

This is not about the Commonwealth divulging information on people; it is about providing a mechanism by which information can be matched with the states. It is very important that we have some standardisation in the collection and maintenance of this data to ensure a reasonably clear passage in the matching process but, more importantly, as we travel further down the track, it is important in relation to the admissibility of evidence in courts of criminal jurisdiction. As most people would be aware, there are going to be protections for material that is collected on this database. That material is subject to the privacy provisions, but those provisions will now apply across each of the databases that feed material into the national collection system.

I have said here and in other forums that we, the Commonwealth parliament, cannot take our eyes off law enforcement simply because it is predominantly a state or territory matter. We have an obligation to provide a degree of coordination, as the Commonwealth has done in this case. I believe this serves as a good example of what we can do effectively in law enforcement. I think we have a very good track record when it comes to what is able to be achieved in respect of national fingerprinting. I think that works and serves policing throughout Australia very well. What is being achieved through this amendment and by putting beyond doubt the impediments in the existing legislation will prove to be very good for law enforcement generally throughout Australia.

In the same way as we expect that for occupations to be able to compete in a very competitive world they need to have the best available resources, I think it falls to us to ensure that that also applies to law enforcement and policing. That should apply across jurisdictions. I am happy that the minister has joined us for this latter part of the conversation. I believe this bill serves the Commonwealth well. I think it has demonstrated that the Commonwealth does have a significant role in law enforcement. As I said earlier, the Commonwealth committed $50 million to initiate this national DNA database. Despite the fact that the development of the database has been slow and has had a long gestation period in terms of being utilised by each of the states and territories, it has nevertheless provided the police services throughout the states and the Commonwealth with a second-to-none crime fighting tool which, quite frankly, will prove to be of significant benefit to law enforcement agencies in this country.

It is important that we have consistent rules in establishing the collection of the forensic material. The way we collect material is important, and so is the way it is going to be admissible in the state or criminal jurisdictions but, more than that, this is a very solid example of what can be achieved through federal and state cooperation.

With that, I commend this piece of legislation. This amendment bill puts beyond doubt what was in the minds of those who had the foresight back in 1998, I think, to devise this as a project and who then, in 2000, moved towards the development of the model legislation. It is regrettable that the model legislation was not picked up in each of the state and territory jurisdictions in the way that the state, territory and Commonwealth ministers agreed initially, but I think this actually does now remove those impediments. This is an example of what we can do through cooperation. This is a very positive example of the Commonwealth’s role, which I think has to be seen as a growing role, in law enforcement across the country.

David Fawcett (Wakefield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to briefly speak on the Crimes Act Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Bill (No. 1) 2006. As speakers have previously outlined, the purpose of this bill is simple enough: to ensure that interjurisdictional DNA profile matching using the National Criminal Investigation DNA Database, or the NCIDD, can be implemented across all of the jurisdictions in Australia rather than having disparate systems between the Australian government and the various state and territory governments. The principal features of this will be expanding the access of the state and territory officials to the NCIDD, aligning the permissible matching of DNA profiles under the Commonwealth legislation with these other jurisdictions and clarifying that ministerial arrangements can also deal with the transmission of information to and from the database.

My teenage children tell me that DNA is a vital thing these days—they see it so much on TV. It is interesting to note that a quick search in the media shows that there is quite a bit of information in the public arena about cases that are being solved, current cases and even old cases, here in Australia. In the Glebe morgue, for example, there are literally boxes and boxes of bones from people that have been found, and they are now trying to match them with the 400 long-term missing persons in New South Wales. In Western Australia they are even using DNA to try and track down stolen sheep, which is perhaps something that was not envisaged.

More importantly in terms of the power of this tool for policing and solving crime, reports out of the UK talking about new techniques to recover quite poor quality DNA samples are predicting that they will have a 15 per cent increase in closure rates in cases with these new DNA techniques. The agencies there are dealing with some 130,000 cases every year using DNA profile testing.

I would like to move on from that, though, and talk about why this is important in the community. In almost every survey that I send out in the electorate of Wakefield or when I have community information stands in the shopping centres in Elizabeth, Craigmore and Munno Para, the consistent theme that comes back from the electors and the people of Wakefield is that they are concerned by the levels of crime in their community. They are looking for leadership and action from the government. They do not particularly care what level of government, but what they want to see is things to make them safer in their community and in their homes.

It is interesting to note that just today Adelaide’s paper, The Advertiser, has an article talking about a shortage of experienced police officers affecting the force’s ability to investigate crimes. It says that the retention of officers with experience is even more important than the recent round trying to recruit new officers from overseas.

What the public expect to see is consistency from government in their approach to policing. That is why it was disappointing earlier this year to see that the state government were starting to talk about a three per cent to four per cent cut of some $20 million to the police budget as part of their well-overdue state budget. In the end that did not eventuate, but there was a significant period of uncertainty, which is of great concern to the electors of Wakefield, particularly if we look at some of the statistics on crime rates. Despite boasts about falling crime rates, in figures that have been prepared by the Office of Crime Statistics and Research, you can see that between 2001 and 2005 in South Australia sexual offences increased by 8.8 per cent, offences against good order increased by 19.2 per cent and driving offences increased by 31.3 per cent. There has also been information around about the fact that the reporting of many of the statistics has been changed to put a more positive spin on them. But the fact that people continue to tell me that their biggest concerns are crime and safety in their home says that these are something that all levels of government need to be working together on.

In that regard, it was disappointing to see that one of the first things the state Labor government did when they came to power was scrap the Crime Prevention Program, which was a very successful program implemented by the previous government. I am glad to see that, from an Australian government perspective, we have continued and in fact expanded our National Community Crime Prevention Program. I was very pleased just recently to go to one of the local primary schools in Elizabeth, along with an organisation called Good Beginnings, to announce a $498,000 program under the Community Crime Prevention Program to look at early intervention with families to keep kids connected with families and learning so that we reduce the likelihood of people becoming involved in crime.

From a federal perspective, we have also maintained the very successful Tough on Drugs program, which has seen a large fall in hard drugs like heroin, and a large awareness program for people. Anyone that you talk to about crime will very quickly make the link between the use of drugs in our community and criminal activity. Likewise, I notice that, in our spending on police at a federal level, the Federal Police budget has gone from $192 million when we came to office to over $816 million this year. It shows the clear leadership that this government is looking to have in providing security and safety for our people.

So there are a range of areas of concern—hoon driving, drugs, speeding and safety in the home—but prevention is probably one of the most important things. It is notable that this government is again trying to take the lead, even in things like the family relationship centres, which are trying to build stronger families and which have the flow-on effect of providing the sort of environment that our young people need to steer them away from the involvement in drugs and crime that leads to some of these statistics later in life.

I support this bill because it is yet another example of the cooperation that needs to exist between levels of government and of leadership from the Commonwealth government in making sure we have processes that give our police forces at whichever level every tool that they need to successfully prosecute crime and make communities around Australia, and particularly in the electorate of Wakefield, safer.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I first thank all those members who have participated in this debate on the Crimes Act Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Bill (No. 1) 2006, particularly the members for Gellibrand, Herbert, Swan, Fisher, Werriwa and Wakefield. Can I just say, in relation to the contribution from my friend the member for Wakefield, how much I appreciated his insightful comments about what was happening in his electorate and the relevance of these matters not only to law enforcement but also to the active role the Commonwealth is pursuing in dealing with issues of serious criminality. The commendation that he made about the work of our Australian Federal Police is something that I will pass on to the commissioner when I see him.

The primary purpose of this bill of course is to address specific impediments raised by the states and territories that have prevented the exchange of DNA profiles on a national basis. I think it is very important that we have harmonisation of laws across the Commonwealth. While these matters have relied substantially on the way in which states and territories have implemented arrangements for DNA profile matching, these amendments are designed to allay the concern that the states and territories have and to encourage all jurisdictions to commit to interjurisdictional matching.

The amendments address, amongst other things, the recommendations contained in the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee’s report, and I wish to briefly record my own appreciation for the work of the committee and to thank them.

The intent of this bill was to always grant access to states and territories to the relevant DNA information held and to ensure that officials authorised under relevant state and territory law would have access, not just officials with an audit role. The government’s amendments have removed the word ‘audit’ from the text of the bill, giving effect to that policy objective. The government’s amendments also clarified the intent of the legislation that state and territory databases remain subject to the control of the relevant state or territory. The amendments address the issues raised by states and territories and do not make substantive changes to the way in which DNA profiles will be used, accessed or controlled.

The government’s amendments also change the situations in which DNA profile matching is allowed in order to mirror other jurisdictions’ matching tables and to remove any unnecessary restrictions on the matching of DNA of volunteers for unlimited purposes. These purposes also allow for DNA from suspects to be matched against DNA obtained from suspects at other times. Therefore, these changes implement the eight recommendations of the independent review of part 1D of the Crimes Act by Tom Sherman AO in 2003.

Obviously, I am delighted at the support that has been given to the measure. I think it is a very important contribution to our continuing program of law reform in the area of criminal detection and apprehension and, as I said earlier, I thank all members for their contribution to the bill and commend the bill to the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.