Political hands mapping DNA law

The proposed DNA law will be measured by the Government's handling of national security: the reckless appointment of the anti-narcotics czar; the use of emergency powers with the weakest justification of yet unknown major national security threats and the deployment of the police and military to rounds-up without cause. Add the lowest level of trust in the politicians, the police and police spokespeople who create law as they go along. Even with its positive changes, if it becomes law, the new DNA Act will give national security's Mr Bean something else to bungle.

Fooling around with DNA sampling has dangerous consequences. DNA sampling protects the society with its potential for early detection, arrest and conviction of offenders. But it also interferes with the fundamental rights of the individual to security of the person and privacy. To be effective the legislation must balance these competing interests; to be fair it must support crime-fighting and not just carry the permanent watermark of the State of Emergency.

To measure effectiveness and fairness, the DNA debate must focus on two areas: the extension of DNA sampling without consent to all offences and the differences between the current and proposed legislation. Both the current and proposed legislation go against the grain of DNA legislation.The current arrangement restricts the use of sampling to indictable offences and summary offences punishable by imprisonment for more than six months.

But the new legislation will permit DNA samples to be taken without consent in all offences. DNA is not useful in every criminal offence.