Senator MURRAY (1:52 PM) —In view of the remarks of the shadow Attorney-General, I seek leave to move Democrats' amendments 1 to 13 together.

Leave granted.

Senator MURRAY —I move :

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 7 (lines 11 and 12), omit paragraph (a) of the definition of suspect .

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 12 (before line 1), after Division 2, insert:

Division 2A—Limitations on forensic procedures

23WCB Limitations on forensic procedures where suspect not charged or summonsed

Forensic procedures which may be carried out on a person who is a suspect because of paragraph (a) of the definition of suspect are limited to the following non-intimate forensic procedures:

(a) the taking of a sample of hair other than pubic hair;

(b) the taking of a sample from a nail or under a nail;

(c) the taking of a hand print, finger print, foot print or toe print.

23WCC Limitations on forensic procedures where suspect under arrest and in custody but not charged

Forensic procedures which may be carried out on a person who:

(a) is a suspect because of paragraph (a) of the definition of suspect ; and

(b) is under arrest; and

(c) is in custody;

are limited to non-intimate forensic procedures unless the person is suspected on reasonable grounds of committing an offence under Part IIIA.

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 12 (line 4), omit "A person", substitute "Subject to Division 2A, a person".

(4) Schedule l, item 1, page 13 (line 3), omit "Nothing", substitute "Subject to Division 2A, nothing".

(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 20 (line 31), omit "A person", substitute "Subject to Division 2A, a person".

(6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 21 (line 12), omit "Nothing", substitute "Subject to Division 2A, nothing".

(7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 21 (line 24), omit "A senior constable", substitute "Subject to Division 2A, a senior constable".

(8) Schedule 1, item 1, page 23 (line 15), omit "A person", substitute "Subject to Division 2A, a person".

(9) Schedule 1, item 1, page 23 (line 28), at the end of section 23WR, add:

; provided that the suspect is not a suspect because of paragraph (a) of the definition of suspect .

(10) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 9 to 14), omit the definition of appropriately qualified , substitute:

appropriately qualified , in relation to carrying out a forensic procedure, means:

(a) if a person is a constable:

(i) qualified under the regulations to carry out the forensic procedure; and

(ii) having successfully completed a course of training approved by the Minister; or

(b) in any other case:

(i) having suitable professional qualifications or experience to carry out the forensic procedure; or

(ii) qualified under the regulations to carry out the forensic procedure.

(11) Schedule 1, item 1, page 40 (cell at table item 10, 2nd column), omit "constable".

(12) Schedule 1, item 1, page 40 (cell at table item 11, 2nd column), omit "constable".

(13) Schedule 1, item 1, page 41 (cell at table item 14, 2nd column), omit "constable", substitute "appropriately qualified person".

The committee will recall that I addressed this bill during the second reading debate on 14 May 1998. The committee has also acknowledged that the Democrats have been a part of all the extensive reviews, and I acknowledge that the government and its predecessor have tried to attend to many of the recommendations and requirements laid out in those reports. I should indicate for the record though, that it is a concern to us that this bill does intrude into civil liberties, and the question is whether the bill significantly advances the public good in so doing.

The minister did point out that we had raised the issue of whether significantly advanced criminal detection rates will result from the bill, and we had said that it was readily apparent from the evidence put to the hearings that no such case is made by the proponents of the bill. The minister has dismissed our concerns, I presume based on the brief put before him. However, I would like to advise him, for the record, that the advice we received that there was no quantified detection rate expected from this bill was provided by none other than Mr Alan Mills, general manager of national operations, Australian Federal Police, and Dr James Robertson, director of forensic services, on behalf of the Australian Federal Police, in their submission to the hearings. If you wish to check the Hansard record, you will find that they declined to be specific. Obviously, there is a general inference that there will be increased detection rates and they acknowledge that, and we acknowledge that.

Obviously, DNA testing is to the advantage of criminal detection. We acknowledge that and we accept that, and in many respects, in fact, we regard this bill as having some very attractive characteristics. Our concerns, Minister, were to provide amendments which just addressed our concerns without moving away from the intention of the bill which was to improve Australian policing. I should make those remarks in respect of amendments 1 to 13.

Amendments not agreed to.