Mr PALLAS (Tarneit) — I might say in starting my contribution to debate on this bill that it feels to me, having heard the contribution of the member for Brunswick, that there is little more for me to add to this debate.

She has so forensically and precisely nailed this government for the sham it is when it comes to talking about the substantial provision of investigative powers. The Crimes Amendment (Investigative Powers) Bill 2013 is a bill that the Labor Party does not oppose in this place. I think it is important when looking at the introduction of DNA technology to recognise that it is an emerging field of forensic investigation, one that has come ahead in leaps and bounds, one that in many ways provides certainty within the scientific parameters that the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the policing arm of our communities operate within.

But more than that, it is important that there is a high level of confidence in the community so that when DNA samples are taken, they are taken in a way that complies with protocols put in place by this Parliament and are oversighted in a way such that those involved in the judicial process, in the administration of justice and in the community more generally can have confidence that these systems are there for their protection and for the apprehension of those who have fallen foul of the law.

Confidence is the key to making sure that new-generation technologies like DNA can be employed in a similar way to the tried and true technologies that have assisted the apprehension and enforcement powers of the police. Police and forensic personnel need to carry out their work within a clear legislative framework. In the absence of that framework, injustice can thrive. They need clarity of responsibility and certainty of apprehension in circumstances where there are not only the right tools for enforcement and the right capacity for the police to enforce, but also a recognition that these technologies must be applied fairly and appropriately, and, I might say, forensically — because ‘forensically’ implies a level of diligence, independence and effectiveness that can only enhance our judicial system. Justice flourishes only where those who feel aggrieved have opportunities and protections, and that is fundamentally what the law is about: the protection of those who need it in circumstances where otherwise an injustice might occur. Labor has of course proposed reforms to forensic procedures, including the extension of powers to collect DNA for all indictable offences back to 2010. This is nothing new.

Under the Brumby government recommendations were made following the case of Jama and other incidents that highlighted problems in police processing of DNA. These problems confront governments at various times, but they go to integrity of evidence as collected in the policing function and they go very much to the confidence the community can have in the collection and use of that material for the purposes of prosecutions, including prosecutions that ultimately lead to convictions that the community can have confidence in.

It has taken the coalition three years since being elected, really, to get around to the issue. Whilst many issues confront the criminal justice system in the state of Victoria, members of the coalition have been very slow to address those issues.

Actions taken by the government, including those such as the prosecution powers for protective services officers, have failed to stop the growth in crime rates. What we are seeing consistently are government members hiding behind this idea that they are tough on crime despite an abject failure in their efforts to reduce crime in our community.

In many ways this bill is about dealing not only with crime but also the perceptions of crime and this government’s failure to adequately instil in the community a level of confidence that crime is being addressed appropriately.

It also demonstrates the government’s continuing failure to recognise that if you have an agenda and you believe that injustices are being meted out in the community and your legislative objectives include, for example, the importance of introducing a bill associated with ensuring enforcement powers around the introduction of new DNA technologies, then perhaps the bill should have been introduced sooner than three years into the term of this government.

The courts in Victoria are struggling under this government. It is a government that fails to recognise that it needs not only to put in place systems that enable enforcement to be undertaken in an efficient and streamlined fashion but also to recognise that there is in Victoria serious and unprecedented overcrowding of our prisons and police holding cells.

I know that those opposite will be asking, ‘What does that mean in the context of a bill aimed specifically at providing investigative powers for police?’. The answer is that ultimately it is about ensuring that the crime rates and the incarceration rates that this government has presided over in this state are addressed. 

The major cuts the government has made to Victoria Police and the Department of Justice are a demonstration of this government taking its eye off the ball in a policy sense, whether it be the three years that the community had to wait for this legislation to find its way to the government attributing a level of importance to it or, more importantly, the talking that this government does about providing the police with the tools of their trade and the powers they need to go about performing their enforcement duties appropriately armed and effectively employed.

If members want to see a demonstration of abject failure, it is in the three years of sloth that have underpinned the failure to bring this legislation before this place. In those three years crime rates and incarceration rates in this state have been rising and this government considers that it can essentially continue to whistle past the graveyard of community requirements for effective protection. Members of the Napthine government like to talk about law and order. They like to talk the talk.

They like to talk about the need to be tough on crime, but they need to recognise that there is no single legislative amendment they can introduce in this place that will resolve the general attitudinal change this government needs to make.

The government should not just be tough on crime; it should be tough on crime and the causes of crime. It should recognise that in a community it is not simply at the coalface that problems need to be addressed, and nor is it about arming law enforcement officers in circumstances where they are not armed in the community.

The fundamental issue is that the government must accept that it has failed in its efforts to undermine the policing function, which this government has chosen to focus by and large on enforcement and revenue raising at growing expense to the community — an expense that is ultimately counted in lost opportunities.

This bill is the greatest lost opportunity, because the community has been waiting three years for a piece of legislation that will provide for police and forensic personnel to carry out their work in a clear legislative framework. This bill could have provided a regime to ensure that DNA evidence and individual profiles are properly applied and destroyed, but the government has destroyed even the vestige of a desire to see a proper legislative scheme put in place.

It has failed again in its efforts to ensure that law and order are synonymous with community protection, and that is this government’s principal failing.