Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]

POLICE ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT (FORENSIC PROCEDURES) BILL 2004


Bill presented and read a first time.

Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

It is universally accepted that DNA identification has become one of the most valuable tools for police investigating crime and identifying people. It is well known that the Territory has the most effective and uncomplicated DNA legislation for law enforcement in Australia. It is the envy of other jurisdictions. We have successfully resisted Commonwealth pressure to remodel the legislation in the way that other jurisdictions may now be discovering makes it very hard to use in the fight against crime.

Nonetheless, further benefits of DNA identification can be realised by further enhancing Territory DNA legislation. This government is also committed to ensuring that DNA is used appropriately, transparently and accountably and that personal privacy is protected, but without in any way weakening or limited its use as a tool for identifying criminal suspects and clearing innocent people of suspicion.

I believe that the Police Administration Amendment Bill 2004 combines and balances all these important features. Now that we have arrangements for the exchange of DNA information in place, or soon to be in place with most Australian jurisdictions, and we are now in the position to upload DNA profiles on to the national DNA database operated by Crimtrack, there is a final step to be taken for DNA identification to be used regularly for cross-border all the criminal investigations. This is to legislate for our Northern Territory police to take DNA samples for other police forces and vice versa.

This legislation introduces the concepts of reciprocal registration and enforcement of forensic procedure orders and approvals. The new section 147E in the Police Administration Act will mirror corresponding legislation from Queensland and South Australia. So if a superintendent of Northern Territory Police gives approval for a DNA sample to be taken from a criminal suspect in, say, Queensland, this approval, or order, can be registered with the Commissioner of Queensland Police and arrangements can be made for one of his officers to obtain the sample and send it back to the Northern Territory Forensic Science Centre. If the suspect’s DNA does not match the DNA sample from the crime scene here in the Territory, then the suspect can be excluded from police enquiries, so avoiding the need for extradition proceedings.

We hear a great deal about DNA identification for the purposes of criminal investigation, but it is also an invaluable means of identifying deceased people and human remains. However, the Police Administration Act does not permit access to the NT DNA database, unless it is for the investigation of a crime. Now, there are some disasters, both natural and man made, such as fires and explosions, where the victim is so disfigured or dismembered that normal means of identification, such as dental records and fingerprints cannot be used. In these circumstances, DNA identification is used to identify the victims and assign body parts for the purpose of burial. In these circumstances, we may need to use the DNA database to help identify these victims. These amendments will permit this use and also on the rare occasions where access to the DNA database could help police and relatives find a missing person.

We also do not yet have the legal capacity to exchange DNA information with overseas police forces, neither to identify people suspected of committing crimes in the Northern Territory who have gone abroad, nor to assist identify our own people who may be victims of a disaster overseas, such as the Bali bombing.

Although in practice this information would probably be exchanged through the Australian Federal Police and Interpol, this government insists that the Territory retains control of this information and remains accountable for how it is used and by whom. Our current arrangements for exchange of DNA information do not contemplate the transmission of information to third parties. These amendments allow me, as Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, to prescribe overseas jurisdictions with which I may enter an arrangement for the exchange of DNA information should the need arise. I, and the Commissioner of Police, will still retain the ability to enter arrangements with other jurisdictions for exchange of DNA information.

On the matter of accountability, Northern Territory Police staff have worked with the Information Commissioner to ensure that arrangements for the exchange of DNA information meet the standards we require to protect Territorians’ personal information and to ensure the public retains confidence in the whole process.

One area which we do see as important to tighten is what appears to be a drafting error in the original legislation. The legislation is intended to protect people who were not suspects but who had given DNA samples to help police in an investigation. We call them volunteers. The legislation prevents this information being used in evidence, except for the case in which it was given and for other very serious crimes, such as rape and murder, attracting a penalty of 14 years or more imprisonment. However, it does not expressly prevent it being used in other investigations.

In practice, the Forensic Science Centre and police have followed the spirit of the legislation and have not released or otherwise used volunteers’ DNA information, except for these very serious cases. However, in my view, it is now time to correct this drafting error, ensure that the act accurately reflects the intention of parliament, which is what this amendment will do. This protection will extend to persons who volunteer forensic information for any purpose, whether to assist in a criminal investigation as a victim of crime, or to help locate a missing person or identify human remains.

Returning to the concept of accountability, the concerns of some people - and I suggest that they are not always well directed or fully informed - are that DNA samples taken by police could be analysed to extract personal information such as predictive health information. This information would be of no use to police for investigating crime. I am advised that human DNA which is analysed by police forensic scientists, is loosely termed ‘uncoded’ or ‘junk DNA’ and, if it codes for any physical or other feature, scientists do not know what that might be. The DNA profile that is extracted from analysis of this uncoded DNA is no more than a number. It is a long number and a unique number to that person but, as far as scientists know, it contains less information than the number on our driver’s licence. Therefore, to that extent, security and accountability surrounding DNA profiles held by police is far better than applied by other institutions holding more informative personal data.

However, whilst I can assure members that the Northern Territory forensic science laboratory has the highest standards of sample and information security, the government also believes there is always a need for transparency and accountability for what takes place in the laboratory. I believe that the Northern Territory is the first Australian jurisdiction to legislate in this area. These amendments will require me, as the responsible minister, to approve and prescribe any new applications used by the Forensic Science Centre for DNA analysis. That means I, and the public, can continue to be confident of what information is being extracted from our personal DNA samples.

Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.

Debate adjourned.




 

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]