The first two editorials for Volume 49 of our journal have seen commentaries from Linzi Wilson-Wilde and Adrian Linacre in their respective new roles as Director ANZPAA NIFS (Australian and New Zealand Police Advisory Agency National Institute of Forensic Sciences) and President of ANZFSS (Australian and New Zealand Forensic Science Society). Both have related some of the history of their respective bodies and outlined future directions for their respective bodiesCitation1,2.
Interestingly, Linzi commented on the fact that the now defunct SMANZFL (Senior Managers Australian and New Zealand Forensic Laboratories) was not really capable of being a truly independent voice for leadership in the forensic sciences due to the inescapable fact that there was a tension between its members in their roles as senior government employees and having the independent voice envisaged when SMANZFL was established. It is to the great credit of those who served on SMANZFL, over its 30 year history, that so much was achieved through SMANZFL and, for much of its history, in a close working relationship with NIFS. As a former Chair of SMANZFL I might argue for the informal, and often behind the scenes, influence that SMANZFL exerted, sometimes not always to the delight of our employers. However, I do think that an unintended consequence of SMANZFL was that over the years senior managers perhaps did not see themselves as being part of the ANZFSS and, to a limited degree, even our own Academy became a home to some senior managers. I do not want to labour this point, as it was of course possible to be a member of all three groups and contribute to the aims of each. As a personal example, at various and sometimes even overlapping times, I have been the Chair of SMANZFL, the President of the Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) and the Vice President of the ANZFSS.
It is interesting then that Linzi now sees ANZFSS as being ‘better suited’ in its ability to be the independent voice of forensic science. Linzi also commented on the emerging professional membership category developed through the ANZFSS. Adrian is his editorial also recognized the central importance of the professional membership category to the future of the ANZFSS, whilst acknowledging the importance of this not being at the cost of a broad membership.
It was always my view that SMANZFL was only one group from whom NIFS would seek advice and that the ANZFSS was of equal importance, representing as it does forensic science practitioners. Others may hold a different view but, in my opinion, over the 25-year history of NIFS, ANZFSS was not especially effective in playing a strategic role and did not have a significant influence on the work of NIFS, whereas the SMANZFL/NIFS relationship was central to the work of NIFS.
The demise of SMANZFL and the establishment of ANZFEC (Australian and New Zealand Forensic Executive Committee) provide clarity on the responsibilities of this committee and its formal reporting relationships and it certainly removes any ambiguity about its independence. Linzi argues that this will result in ANZPAA NIFS being far more flexible and responsive to issues with clearer reporting and greater transparency. What these new arrangements do leave is a void in independent leadership within the broader forensic community. The opportunity is there for the ANZFSS and its leadership to step up to the mark and become that independent voice. My gut feeling (note the lack of empirical evidence) is that for some time more senior managers have become somewhat disengaged with the ANZFSS. I would not like to see the ANZFSS dominated by senior managers but they should be members and they could contribute through their experience in developing an effective strategic voice for the ANZFSS. It seems obvious to me that the society needs to draw its members from across all levels of experience within the profession.
Finally, both Linzi and Adrian touch on the recent PCAST report (President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology), and the importance that forensic science in Australia and New Zealand assess its status against the issues raised in this report. I am sure this is a topic that will fill pages in future issues of the journal and, about which, we will require leadership from both NIFS and the ANZFSS.
National Centre for Forensic Studies, University of Canberra, Australia
[email protected]
References
- Wilson-Wilde L. The future of the National Institute of Forensic Science – implications for Australia and New Zealand. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2017;49:1–8.
- Linacre A. Editorial. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2017;49:123–124.