Via the SMH: "Under the legislation police will have the discretion to demand a hair sample or mouth swab after any arrest, no matter how minor. Police only have to believe that taking the sample will produce evidence linking the offender to a crime. At present samples can only be taken for serious offences such as murder, robbery and sexual assault."
I can understand DNA sampling for murder and sexual assault not for robbery - unless it was particularly violent and in all cases the judicial gave their assent to it. Taking DNA samples for minor offences is not on though. Even more so when last month several states signed up to a DNA sharing agreement.
Australia is a step closer to a national DNA database with Queensland, Western Australia and the ACT signing the national information-sharing agreement. Only NSW and Victoria are yet to sign up, and they have promised to do so.According to the SMH the new laws that will come out of the Iemma cabinet are to fight "Terrorism". It looks like anything can be passed in the name of terrorism now. We are seeing more and more intrusion by the executive, of which the police are a part, into the realm of the judicial. If the DNA sample required a nod from a judge first, then yes I would understand it, but without that it allows the executive and police to act arbitrarily. Worse any arbitrary behaviour on the part of the police may put an individual into a national DNA database.
