Senate hearing on Crimtrac fingerprint conversion
Attorney-General's Department
2 May 2000
Attorney-General's Department:
Outcome 1--An equitable and accessible system of federal law and justice:
Output Group 1.4--Performance of statutory obligations
Committee name: Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee
Senator BOLKUS --I will move to CrimTrac. Can one of you tell us what stage the implementation of CrimTrac is up to?
Mr Dabb --That will be Mr Carnell from the Law Enforcement Coordination Division.
Mr Carnell --The first of the key deliverables for CrimTrac is the replacement national fingerprint system. We have signed a contract for the system that will be provided by a French company called Sagem. We are looking at implementation over December of this year and January of next year. We are also moving to establish formally the organisation. Currently, the national fingerprint system and some other services about accessing police information are actually provided by the national exchange of police information, which is a common police service hosted by the New South Wales police service. Part of the CrimTrac idea is that the Commonwealth will now host the organisation that provides such services, and we are moving towards that. We hope to have that established with effect from 1 July.
Senator BOLKUS --I will just go back to the contract with Sagem. You may want to take this on notice. Can you give us information as to what functions are to be undertaken pursuant to the contract, the cost of each element, anticipated timeframes for the delivery of the functions and procedures and protections to be followed--protections such as privacy and whatever?
Mr Carnell --Certainly. The contract with Sagem itself is $14.8 million but there are naturally other costs also associated with the process. We can give you a detailed breakdown of all those amounts and the phases of implementation.
Senator BOLKUS --Is it true that, under the contract, Australia's hardcopy fingerprint data has been shipped to the US to be loaded onto a new database?
Mr Carnell --Yes. That was for conversion purposes.
Senator BOLKUS --When was it sent?
Mr Terrell --The cards have been shipped to a conversion facility which is run by Sagem in Tacoma in the United States.
Senator BOLKUS --What has actually been sent?
Mr Terrell --The police services in Australia collect fingerprint cards both from suspects and convicted offenders. Those cards are normally called 10 print cards. They are collected each time fingerprints are taken from individuals. There is also data collected in terms of forensic evidence from crime scenes and cards are collected in those cases as well. So there are two sets of cards being transported to the United States for conversion.
Senator BOLKUS --Can you tell us how many cards altogether? There might be thousands here.
Mr Carnell --There are 2.5 million sets of fingerprints.
Senator BOLKUS --When were they sent?
Mr Carnell --It was quite recent. I think it was in March. Each state or territory is sending theirs at slightly different intervals. In many instances, a person from the relevant police services accompanies them. There is also a New South Wales police officer on location there full time to supervise the conversion. Obviously, we pay significant attention to security. They are going in security containers with tamper-proof locks, et cetera. I would emphasise, too, that this is only for the conversion. It is still our intention that the database will be within Australia when it is operational. This is purely for the conversion pur- pose.
Senator BOLKUS --When should we anticipate these records to be there?
Mr Terrell --The entire process will take about five months. As the cards are converted, I understand that they are being shipped back to Australia.
Senator BOLKUS --Has there been any delay in the process so far? We have had some reports that it is taking a bit longer than anticipated.
Mr Carnell --There were a couple of small hiccups, but they will not significantly affect the sorts of time frames for our implementation date.
Senator BOLKUS --You know you cannot get away with words like that. What does 'a small hiccup' mean in these circumstances?
Mr Carnell --I think there was a two-week delay in getting them from the existing organisation, NEPI, out to the airport. There was some toing-and-froing with the arrangements.
Senator BOLKUS --How long do you anticipate that it should take to send one particular lot over, to get them transcribed and to send them back?
Mr Terrell --It depends on the number of cards in each jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions have a lot of cards based purely on the way that they collect the data. We would have to come back and confirm this, but I think we are working on the assumption that the process as a whole will be finished by September.
To that extent, the minor hiccups have not impacted on that deadline at all.
Senator BOLKUS --For instance, each state is sending theirs in one lot.
Mr Terrell --I understand that each state has people dedicated to the task of batching the cards together, to compartmentalising them securely and to shipping them across. That is what Ian Carnell mentioned before.
Senator BOLKUS --Would this include AFP fingerprints as well?
Mr Terrell --Yes, it would; although, the AFP is a fairly small player in terms of the data conversion proc- ess.
Senator BOLKUS --What about the fingerprints of people who live overseas or who may be suspected of being in Australia but whose fingerprints have been sent here through some international police cooperation mechanism? Are they included as well?
Mr Terrell --I would have to confirm that, but I do not think so. This is the information collected by the Australian police services, under their existing legislation.
Senator BOLKUS --While the cards are away for so many months or whatever, are copies being kept of them in Australia?
Mr Terrell --The existing system is continuing to operate as normal. As I understand it, if a police service requires a particular card--for instance, for a case appearing before a court--it would be retrieved; but I would have to confirm that.
Senator BOLKUS --If the police were trying to track someone through a range of fingerprint records, they would not have hard copies in Australia to go back to. They would have to get them back from the United States.
Mr Terrell --If that were the case, yes; but I would have to confirm that that was in fact the way it was being worked.
Senator BOLKUS --Will all of this be completed by early or late September? Mr Terrell --I have not got the project schedule with me, but I think that is thtime.
Senator BOLKUS --And you are telling us that, in respect of each lot that has gone over, there has been an accompanying police officer from each state jurisdiction and the AFP?
Mr Terrell --I would have to check with each state but there are police officers travelling to the United States to assist with the conversion process. We have a New South Wales police officer working with the CrimTrac project office who arrived on site prior to the arrival of the cards and will be there throughout the entire conversion process to make sure that it is run as smoothly as possible.
Senator BOLKUS --Who will be there from AG's or the federal instrumentalities?
Mr Terrell --This particular person is a fingerprint expert who is working on our behalf. He is currently working through the New South Wales police service but he is working full time effectively on this.
Senator BOLKUS --We have some privacy legislation which normally attaches to these circumstances. How are we to be assured that the cards and the information will be treated in accordance with such legislation?
Mr Terrell --As far as I am aware, the only privacy legislation which would impact upon it would be the Commonwealth privacy legislation pertaining in particular to the AFP. I will have to go back and check as far as the various jurisdictional privacy regimes as to the particular circumstances with each state and territory. But I think that the main point is that the security that has been accorded to the fingerprints is considered to meet not only the police requirements but also the privacy requirements.
Senator BOLKUS --Who has made that assessment?
Mr Terrell --The actual fingerprint experts.
Senator BOLKUS --Are they experts in privacy legislation?
Mr Terrell --I doubt it but they certainly are police officers who understand the importance of the need to protect this information.
Senator BOLKUS --Are there provisions in the arrangements and the contracts to provide for some sort of redress in the case of misuse of the information?
Mr Carnell --Yes. In the contract with Sagem there are all the sorts of the standard confidentiality protections you would expect, and we can list them. In the very first question you asked which we took on notice you wanted a component of that to cover all these sorts of safeguards and we will be happy to spell them out.
Senator BOLKUS --If you could provide us with copies of the relevant clauses that provide for both protection and compensation.
Mr Carnell --Yes.
Senator COONEY --Can I check something at this stage so that I can understand what you said to Senator Bolkus then, Mr Carnell. He was asking if there was protection for people who might be affected by the misuse of this, so that in the contract there would be a clause which allowed the per- son affected to sue.
Mr Carnell --I would have to take that on notice, but in common with many of these sorts of contracts it generally applies the Privacy Act and does provide protections.
Senator COONEY --I noticed recently that there was an act brought into operation in England which allowed third parties to sue on a contract like this. As I understand it, you are saying that this contract provides an opportunity for a third party to sue if affected.
Mr Carnell --Could I come back to you on that please?
Senator COONEY --Yes.
CHAIR --Senator Bolkus?
Senator BOLKUS --Did you make any assessment as to whether this actual process could be conducted within Australia? Why couldn't it be?
Mr Terrell --The assessment was conducted and the answer was that it could not be conducted because the actual facilities were not available.
Senator BOLKUS --What are we talking of doing--transcribing 2½ million fingerprints on a computer system?
Mr Terrell --The process, as I understand it, is actually taking the hard copy fingerprints, scanning them into the Sagem system and Sagem has a specific facility established just for this purpose for itsother clients as well as for the Australian system. Given the actual technic requirements, none of them fingerprint service providers actually offers a conversion process within Australia, as I understand it.
Senator BOLKUS --Once they go on to a computer system, potentially they are unwipable. What protection is there that, once they send back whatever we need, Sagem or whoever does the work over there will not be holding on to their own records of the system?
Mr Terrell --I think this would be falling within the clauses that we were talking about as far as the contract is concerned and the protection that Sagem would have to give information.
Senator BOLKUS --Short of giving over their whole computer system, they are not going to be able to give you a total guarantee that they do not have records there.
Mr Terrell --I would have to check the actual contractual arrangements.
Senator COONEY --How would you find out? This is all going to be done in America, isn't it, by a French company?
Mr Terrell --Yes.
Senator BOLKUS --Can you tell us who are the principals involved in Sagem? Do you know who they are?
Senator Vanstone --They are very largely owned by their own workers. It is a very impressive company in that respect. I think some 60 or 70 per cent of their shares are owned by their workers--I stand to be corrected on that--and their shares are worth about $A1,000 each. They started off as a very small firm and have built up on the basis of supporting the people who work for them.
Senator COONEY --I thought they were a French company.
Senator Vanstone --They are.
Senator COONEY --I thought you said that Australians were shareholders.
Senator Vanstone --No, they are employees.
Senator BOLKUS --If you can come back to us with substantial shareholders, directors. Did you do any checks on who was involved--your own checks as to security, character and so on?
Mr Terrell --Yes.
Senator BOLKUS --Who did those for you?
Mr Terrell --I would have to check, but I think it was done in conjunction with the law enforcement agencies--the Australian law enforcement agencies.
Senator BOLKUS --Minister, you have got 2½ million fingerprints over there, federal privacy legislation and other privacy concerns. Are you satisfied that having one New South Wales policeman over there acting as a protector of all of this information is adequate?
Mr Terrell --Yes, we are.
Senator Vanstone --I would not like to disparage any of the other public servants that I work with by saying this, but I have to say that the CrimTrac team have displayed the most professional approach in their handling of the CrimTrac task which, as you know, is very substantial, and I have the greatest faith in everything they have done. I do not think I have had an occasion ever to doubt the efficacy of things they have put in place. On that basis I would have confidence in what they are doing. Certainly, having met the Sagem people, I have confidence in their intentions. I think we can also provide you with an indication of some of the work they do for other countries. I think we will all be very happy when Australia can say, as it will be able to very soon, that we have the largest finger and palm print database in the world. When implemented, this technology, coupled with the DNA and the remainder of CrimTrac, will put us as world leaders.
Senator BOLKUS --Minister, did you make any inquiries as to whether this could be done within Australia?
Senator Vanstone --No. I do not involve myself in contractual operations and I would certainly hope that when you were minister you did not either.
Senator COONEY --It would seem that it is not able to be done in Australia, otherwise you would not send it over there, I wouldn't have thought. What worries me a bit about having some people over there from Australia is that they probably do not know the technology, they do not know what is happening.
Senator Vanstone --Can you say that again?
Senator COONEY --The people over there are watching this being done. If they could do it themselves, presumably they would have done it in Australia. How much do they know of the technology?
Senator Vanstone --What you are saying is that the watcher does not know what they are watching;is that what you are saying?
Senator COONEY --Yes.
Senator Vanstone --As I understand it, what they record is not the fingerprint itself, but these things called clouds of interest--clouds of minutiae, or something like that--where there are intersecting points, et cetera. That can all be readily explained to someone like me with no scientific background in a matter of minutes, so I am confident that someone who does have a scientific background can get a grasp of the technology that is available to Sagem--that is, Sagem's technology--in a relatively short space of time.
This questioning is based on an assumption of bad faith on Sagem's part. I do not think you are entitled to have that.
Senator COONEY --But we are entitled to say this: let us say you had a case where somebody who was more closed-minded than the people around this table--who are all very open-minded--wanted to challenge the fingerprints and what have you and started taking you through the process by which the fingerprints were recorded by Sagem. On the basis of what we have heard so far, the impression left would be that nobody quite knows what happened or how it was put on record.
Senator Vanstone --Senator Cooney, that is a function of the process being a technical one. You are asking policymakers and bureaucrats to be specialists in the technical process, and they are not. That is exactly why the business is contracted out. We could equally have a run of questioning on how dilapidated the NEPI system was allowed to become, how Australia had a fingerprints system based on cards--cards are not even used in local libraries anymore--and how unsafe that was, because someone could go past, toss a match in and, boom!, you would lose the lot. If we are going to look at what we are doing, let us look at where we are coming from as well. Can I assure you that it will be a very unattractive picture.
Senator COONEY --The worry is that we have to fly somebody in from Sagem every time we get acourt case involving fingerprints. It seems an expensive way of doing things.
Senator Vanstone --No, that will not be the case. For starters, Sagem will have some people based here, and, secondly, one of the great benefits of all of this is that you lift us out of being a country that is working on silly old stamped fingerprints and you allow us to be a country where a wider range of people understand the technology--so we get a bit of transfer at the same time.
Senator COONEY --But you said that we were at the forefront, which means that other countries must have had some worries about this system.
Senator Vanstone --Senator Cooney, you do not assume, do you, that whenever Australia is first, it is rushing ahead because everybody else knows better? I certainly hope that you do not assume that.
Senator COONEY --I get some suspicions when we are the only ones that are rushing ahead in areas like this.
Senator Vanstone --No, not at all. Others are using this technology for fingerprints. We will be the largest in that we will have palm prints and prints of the side of the palm as well--that is where we will have the edge.
Senator BOLKUS --Can I ask whether you have made any inquiries or sought assurances that there would not be any parts of these records kept in the company's computer system in the states after this contract is fulfilled?
Senator Vanstone --I have not personally made those inquiries. As I have said, the CrimTrac team is han- dling the implementation of this. I will repeat that I have not had the opportunity to work with such a professional group of people in the past, and I am confident that all matters that should have been covered would have been covered. Having said that, I am happy to make specific inquiries on that point.
Senator BOLKUS --What stage are we up to in respect of the other aspects of CrimTrac--the DNA database, the national child sex offender register and fast access to operational information including domestic violence and so on? What process have we put in place to organise those aspects of CrimTrac?
Mr Carnell --It is still very early days with those. DNA was seen as the next priority after fingerprints. With DNA, a business case document was put out and the senior officers groups that underpin the Police Ministers Council have considered that. They have also considered in a very general way the sort of archi- tecture that might exist, and there has been significant work with the forensic science community. But the actual detailed planning for that, and its development and implementation, is yet to occur. It will be sparked by us signing a contract with a systems integrator who would do that sort of project work for us, but we are still in negotiations with the preferred company.
Senator COONEY --My grandchild was born just born just before Christmas--
CHAIR --That is on the record once or twice, Senator Cooney.
Senator COONEY --They took a footprint. You are not going to put her footprint on this, are you?
Mr Carnell --No.
Senator BOLKUS --They might take yours though, Barney.
Mr Carnell --No, all profiles that go up will be from samples that have been taken in accordance with the relevant Commonwealth, state and territory legislation, and in many instances that legislation is currently within state parliaments.
Home > Research archive > 2000 > Senate hearing on Crimtrac fingerprint conversion