Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share 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.

See this speech in context