Goff Phil: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Goff Phil: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9444] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I thank the Law and Order Committee for its work on the bill and for the amendments it has suggested. As introduced the bill had three main objectives: firstly allowing the use of mouth or buccal swabs to obtain DNA profiles; secondly extending the range of offences for which police may apply to the court to obtain DNA samples to include those suspected of committing burglary; and thirdly extending compulsory DNA testing for databank purposes to serious offenders currently in prison who were convicted of a relevant offence prior to the law change that allowed DNA testing for the first time in 1996. 
Although the bill represents a key part of the Government’s comprehensive burglary package its application is much broader and will greatly improve the ability of police to investigate and solve other serious crime. The bill significantly increases the scope for the DNA testing of suspects and those convicted of relevant offences. However careful consideration has been given to ensuring that the law strikes an appropriate balance between legitimate law enforcement and the protection of basic personal rights. The ability for DNA samples to be obtained by buccal swabs will result in considerable benefits. Buccal swabs are obviously less intrusive than taking blood. They will also eliminate the cost of having a medically qualified person to perform the task of taking DNA samples while at the same time producing a DNA profile of the same integrity as that obtained from a blood sample. 
The extension of the suspect procedures in Part II to include burglary reinforces the Government’s determination to crack down further on burglary. Burglary is a serious crime is highly intrusive and is often the gateway to more serious offending. Burglary rates have fallen under this Government’s policies—which include better resourcing for police record high police numbers record high police budgets and a stronger burglary focus. Resolution rates have also risen significantly under this Government. This amendment will further improve the police’s ability to resolve burglaries. 
Currently the offences in respect of which a suspect or convicted person can be required to provide a DNA sample are specified in the schedule to the Criminal Investigations (Blood Samples) Act. The bill originally extended this to encompass only burglary—that in itself will have a major impact as this is a high-volume offence. In light of submissions received the committee recommended that the range of offences to which the Act applies be further extended to cover the new list of offences specified in Part 2 schedule 1A: any other offence punishable by a maximum penalty of at least 7 years’ imprisonment and any attempt or conspiracy to commit any of those offences including offences in the principal Act. I concur with this extension which gives the police the ability to obtain DNA to investigate a wider range of offences. The amendments have been made to better align the relevant offences under this legislation with the serious sexual or violent offences specified under the Sentencing Act for determining eligibility for preventive detention. 
In addition as a result of a submission from the Police Association three further offences preparatory to burglary with a maximum penalty of less than 7 years’ imprisonment have been included. These offences relate to being in possession of items that indicate an intention to commit a burglary or to convert another person’s property. While the new definition of “relevant offence” does not go as far as some submitters would wish the offence threshold has been set at a sufficiently high level to indicate a rational connection between serious criminal conduct and the ability for compulsory State intervention. In recognising civil liberties submissions that raised issues about the retrospective application of the criminal law retrospective powers will not attach to any of the new specified relevant offences. 
The select committee has also recommended a number of amendments to ensure that the legislation will operate effectively by streamlining or improving aspects of both the existing law and the bill as introduced. In particular I wish to refer to a number of amendments recommended to the new Part III police databank notice regime. These amendments will ensure that the operation of the Act cannot be defeated solely by a convicted person seeking a judicial hearing on grounds that lack merit. In the bill as introduced potential did exist for convicted persons close to the expiry of the relevant time periods—that is 6 months from conviction for a person not detained in prison or during the term of detention for those in prison—to challenge the grounds for a databank notice and thereby ensure that the DNA sample could not be obtained during the allowable period. That loophole has been closed and the person seeking the hearing will be bound by the judicial determination even if that requires the sample to be taken after the relevant period has expired. 
There is one further committee recommendation I want to mention. The committee has proposed that where a young person aged 14 to 16 consents to give a bodily sample and elects for a buccal swab to be taken that young person may take it him or herself. Under the bill as introduced only a medically qualified person could take such a sample. Given that many young people will be more comfortable taking the sample themselves in a manner no more invasive than cleaning their teeth rather than being required to submit to a stranger swabbing inside their mouths I believe that that is sensible. However the added protection of an independent adult confirming the child’s desire to take the sample and witnessing the taking of the sample is included. A number of other practical and technical amendments have been recommended by the committee. All have my support as sensible changes and clarifications. 
This bill represents a comprehensive overhaul of the 1995 Act. It strikes the appropriate balance in extending the use of DNA as a powerful crime-fighting investigative tool while at the same time recognising and protecting personal rights. It should be noted that the bill applies not only to convicted persons but also to suspects in respect of whom the presumption of innocence exists. This legislation is an important initiative in the Government’s strong commitment to fight crime. Burglary rates will be driven down further resolution rates will continue to improve and community safety and the apprehension of criminals will be enhanced across the board by this legislation. 
It is my intention during the Committee stage to move amendments to the bill by Supplementary Order Paper. Those amendments will preserve and regulate an existing police practice of obtaining buccal samples by consent from children. The proposed amendments will allow DNA profiles obtained by consent from children suspected of committing certain indictable offences to be used either to clear the child of suspicion or alternatively to support an application for a Family Court declaration that the child is in need of care and protection. I commend this bill to the House.