Senator VANSTONE (—Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation) (5.37 p.m.) —I can respond to the senator's concerns without taking up much of the Senate's time. I understand that people are concerned about biometrics—I blame Hollywood for that. Our culture is affected so much by what we see in movies and that sort of thing. I do not think I have ever heard of a movie that has demonstrated where biometrics have in fact saved people from improper prosecution. There was a case—and I believe I could get you the details but I do not have them to hand; I was not expecting this to be raised in this context—of a young man who was arrested on some rape charges. He fitted a pretty loose description—a certain height, a certain build and a certain colour eyes. He was able by the use of biometrics to clearly demonstrate, and quickly, that it was not him. How lucky was he? He had apparently been on an assault charge before—not a sexual assault but an assault charge that was associated with another person who had engaged in sexual assault. If you like, he had form—he was associated with people who committed sexual assault. Put together that record, the match of the description and his being in the vicinity at the time—I bet you that bloke and his family are terribly pleased that DNA was able to show that it was not him. Of course, the police were also pleased because it meant that, instead of losing valuable time while leads went cold, they were able to discard pursuing him, or believing they had the person, and pursue someone else.

It is a fact of life, Senator, that things can be stolen. You used an example today where fingerprints were inappropriately used. What is the answer to that? It is not to chuck away all the identifiers we have. It is not to reject moving forward to better and better identifiers. The answer is to properly monitor the use of identifiers. This bill spells out the purposes for which this information can be used, the types of biometrics that can be taken and used, and the purposes they cannot be used for. In particular I draw your attention to page 32, clause 336D(3), which says that they cannot be used for the investigation of an offence against the Commonwealth or for the prosecution of such an offence. The bill outlines what can be done and when. That could not change without the approval of parliament.

I did not hear the end of your story about the man who went to the football match, but I am not worried. I do not see any difference between having an army of police people, customs people or someone else looking in the crowd for a wanted person—whether they are wanted for a sexual offence or a terrorist defence—and a camera doing it and matching them against existing photos. I see that as no greater intrusion on someone's liberty. I do not want terrorists or rapists thinking that because they are walking in a crowd they will not be caught. I am personally quite in favour of `face in the crowd' technology. If you have done something wrong you must expect the state or the Commonwealth to do what they can to protect from you people against whom you have perpetrated an evil.