Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I thank the Law and Order Committee for its work on the bill, and for the amendments it has suggested. As introduced, the bill had three main objectives: firstly, allowing the use of mouth or buccal swabs to obtain DNA profiles; secondly, extending the range of offences for which police may apply to the court to obtain DNA samples to include those suspected of committing burglary; and, thirdly, extending compulsory DNA testing for databank purposes to serious offenders currently in prison who were convicted of a relevant offence prior to the law change that allowed DNA testing for the first time in 1996.

Although the bill represents a key part of the Government’s comprehensive burglary package, its application is much broader and will greatly improve the ability of police to investigate and solve other serious crime. The bill significantly increases the scope for the DNA testing of suspects and those convicted of relevant offences. However, careful consideration has been given to ensuring that the law strikes an appropriate balance between legitimate law enforcement and the protection of basic personal rights. The ability for DNA samples to be obtained by buccal swabs will result in considerable benefits. Buccal swabs are obviously less intrusive than taking blood. They will also eliminate the cost of having a medically qualified person to perform the task of taking DNA samples, while at the same time producing a DNA profile of the same integrity as that obtained from a blood sample.

The extension of the suspect procedures in Part II to include burglary reinforces the Government’s determination to crack down further on burglary. Burglary is a serious crime, is highly intrusive, and is often the gateway to more serious offending. Burglary rates have fallen under this Government’s policies—which include better resourcing for police, record high police numbers, record high police budgets, and a stronger burglary focus. Resolution rates have also risen significantly under this Government. This amendment will further improve the police’s ability to resolve burglaries.

Currently, the offences in respect of which a suspect or convicted person can be required to provide a DNA sample are specified in the schedule to the Criminal Investigations (Blood Samples) Act. The bill originally extended this to encompass only burglary—that in itself will have a major impact, as this is a high-volume offence. In light of submissions received, the committee recommended that the range of offences to which the Act applies be further extended to cover the new list of offences specified in Part 2, schedule 1A: any other offence punishable by a maximum penalty of at least 7 years’ imprisonment, and any attempt or conspiracy to commit any of those offences, including offences in the principal Act. I concur with this extension, which gives the police the ability to obtain DNA to investigate a wider range of offences. The amendments have been made to better align the relevant offences under this legislation with the serious sexual or violent offences specified under the Sentencing Act for determining eligibility for preventive detention.

In addition, as a result of a submission from the Police Association, three further offences preparatory to burglary, with a maximum penalty of less than 7 years’ imprisonment, have been included. These offences relate to being in possession of items that indicate an intention to commit a burglary, or to convert another person’s property. While the new definition of “relevant offence” does not go as far as some submitters would wish, the offence threshold has been set at a sufficiently high level to indicate a rational connection between serious criminal conduct and the ability for compulsory State intervention. In recognising civil liberties submissions that raised issues about the retrospective application of the criminal law, retrospective powers will not attach to any of the new specified relevant offences.

The select committee has also recommended a number of amendments to ensure that the legislation will operate effectively by streamlining or improving aspects of both the existing law and the bill as introduced. In particular, I wish to refer to a number of amendments recommended to the new Part III police databank notice regime. These amendments will ensure that the operation of the Act cannot be defeated solely by a convicted person seeking a judicial hearing on grounds that lack merit. In the bill as introduced, potential did exist for convicted persons close to the expiry of the relevant time periods—that is, 6 months from conviction for a person not detained in prison, or during the term of detention for those in prison—to challenge the grounds for a databank notice and thereby ensure that the DNA sample could not be obtained during the allowable period. That loophole has been closed, and the person seeking the hearing will be bound by the judicial determination, even if that requires the sample to be taken after the relevant period has expired.

There is one further committee recommendation I want to mention. The committee has proposed that where a young person aged 14 to 16 consents to give a bodily sample and elects for a buccal swab to be taken, that young person may take it him or herself. Under the bill as introduced, only a medically qualified person could take such a sample. Given that many young people will be more comfortable taking the sample themselves in a manner no more invasive than cleaning their teeth, rather than being required to submit to a stranger swabbing inside their mouths, I believe that that is sensible. However, the added protection of an independent adult confirming the child’s desire to take the sample, and witnessing the taking of the sample, is included. A number of other practical and technical amendments have been recommended by the committee. All have my support as sensible changes and clarifications.

This bill represents a comprehensive overhaul of the 1995 Act. It strikes the appropriate balance in extending the use of DNA as a powerful crime-fighting investigative tool, while at the same time recognising and protecting personal rights. It should be noted that the bill applies not only to convicted persons, but also to suspects in respect of whom the presumption of innocence exists. This legislation is an important initiative in the Government’s strong commitment to fight crime. Burglary rates will be driven down further, resolution rates will continue to improve, and community safety and the apprehension of criminals will be enhanced across the board by this legislation.

It is my intention during the Committee stage to move amendments to the bill by Supplementary Order Paper. Those amendments will preserve and regulate an existing police practice of obtaining buccal samples by consent from children. The proposed amendments will allow DNA profiles obtained by consent from children suspected of committing certain indictable offences to be used either to clear the child of suspicion, or alternatively to support an application for a Family Court declaration that the child is in need of care and protection. I commend this bill to the House.

One would think, listening to the Minister, that we are embarking on a bold new strategy to defeat crime. Certainly, that is how he has portrayed it. It is sort of up there with the Sentencing Act, and is one of the great measures in response to the referendum in which 92 percent of New Zealanders voted to deal with crime. Certainly, the Minister is focused on burglary, but it seems to me that he needs to be reminded of some facts—matters that he has scarcely touched upon.

Members will be interested to know that on the North Shore alone drug offences are up by 44 percent—not 4.4 percent, but 44 percent. That is a huge increase in the space of just 1 year, and the Minister’s response to it is a concern about extending laws to deal with burglary. Perhaps that is the one area where the offending rate has gone down somewhat, and, no doubt, that is not due to the Government but, largely, to people installing burglar alarms.

Even if one considered this legislation a reasonable proposition, which the Government proclaims and National supports, the reality is that it is only a small step. Why, for instance, has the Minister not taken a bold step? A bold step would be to say that modern DNA technology is essentially the same as old fingerprint technology. DNA is intended to identify suspects just as fingerprints are. DNA is the modern fingerprint, so a truly innovative approach would have been, say, that for everyone arrested, DNA samples would be taken. The old arguments that used to be run—that we could not do so because the taking of blood samples was too intrusive—do not work any more. The select committee report itself revealed that the mouth swab, essentially a swab between the lips, takes 10 to 20 seconds. I can guarantee that to take a fingerprint is a much more laborious process than that, and is more intrusive upon the individual.

So I say to the Government that it should get with modern technology. It should be forward-looking and provide real tools to the police so that they can deal with crime. The Government should not be bringing in a half-hearted measure like this. We in our interjections mentioned that we have had 4 long years of this Government, and this is the best that it can do in providing new tools for crime fighting. The Government has taken a minor step forward, and that is the best way we can describe it. There has been a complete failure to recognise the increase in violent crime right across the board. [Interruption] The Minister of Police, who obviously needs to be educated, should know that crime across the nation is up 2.5 percent.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Is the member in favour of the bill?

I have said I am in favour of the bill. I have also said that the Government has a responsibility to put measures before this House that would go further, much further, and it has failed to take that step. Because this is such an important issue, it is necessary to record in Hansard the increase in crime in the last 12 months. Overall the crime rate is up by 2. 5 percent, but it is worse, because violent crime is up by 3.6 percent. Sexual offences went down, and drug offences went up by 4.9 percent. The crime rate at the more serious end of the scale went up 14 percent, and overall crime is up on the North Shore.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Homicides are down about 20 percent, aren’t they?

As the Minister will know, that is susceptible to the law of small figures—that we can get large variations because of the relative scarcity of the crime. But when we look at the huge sweep of the large scale, we see that the rate of the number of grievous assaults is up 8.5 percent, and group assemblies are up 35.5 percent.

On this side of the Chamber we have been reflecting our concern about methamphetamine. That is one of the great scourges. The gangs control crime in our country. Everyone will tell us that the bulk of crime comes from a relatively small number of gang-related families. Has this Government introduced into this Parliament any measures that would deal with gang behaviour?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah. It’s got them on the dole.

It has them on the dole committing crime. That is what is happening. Gang members are on the dole committing crime, but where are the measures that would deal with association?

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Lowest numbers on the dole for 15 years.

What about the huge increase in the number of gang members generally? The Minister needs to evaluate his own department’s statistics, which show that the number of gang members is now 20,000. A few years ago that number was only 15,000. That is a 25 percent increase, and when the Minister wonders why it is that drug offences are up so much, he need look only at gang numbers.

It is not enough for the Government to bring these kinds of measures to the House after 4 years but not take the serious steps—the urgent steps—that would deal with crime on a much more substantive basis. It is not just a question of the law; it is also a question of police resourcing. Why is it that we have only just over 7,000 police officers in this nation—a nation that has a population of 4 million? That is a ratio of less than one police officer for every 500 people, which is a ratio worse than that of Australia, Canada, Britain, and every single state in the United States—then we wonder why our crime is increasing. We should be taking the serious steps that are needed to make a real difference, not just doing minor tinkering around the edges of criminal law.

Another point I wish to make is that yesterday the Minister presented a 23-page Supplementary Order Paper. I find it extraordinary that the extensive provisions on that Supplementary Order Paper—on a bill that was introduced years ago and that was before the Law and Order Committee for an extensive period of time, with plenty of opportunity being given to make submissions—were not put before the select committee, where it could have been debated and considered, and the necessary extensions made. The Minister might go on about all the great measures he has made, but this bill is an indictment. It is an indictment on the Government and its minor, trivial, and pathetic efforts to deal with crime. We do not have enough police. We do not have sufficient tools in the criminal kit. The sentencing laws are still deficient. United Future has not been able to put the necessary pressure on the Government to change the Sentencing Act. Violent offenders are still getting out of prison at one-third of their sentences. People on home detention are committing crimes, almost on a daily basis. The reality is that we have an indictment of failure.

Just on Sunday of this week I went to a public meeting on the North Shore, and I can tell the Minister—I know I cannot draw the Speaker into the debate—that the member for Northcote was present. It was the first sunny day in Auckland for weeks and weeks, and the meeting was well attended. There was a deep anger—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: How many were there?

There were 50 people there, all demonstrating their concerns. I want to close by saying that the people at that meeting were family members of victims of murder, but what is the Minister’s response? He laughs at that. He laughs at their pain and does not change the Sentencing Act, which would deal directly with their concerns. That is what they want. They want action, and they have not got it.

I rise in support of the second reading of the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill, which has been returned from the Law and Order Committee. As the Minister said, the bill has three main objectives: to allow the use of mouth samples to obtain DNA profiles, because technology allows us to do that now; to give the police the power to apply to the court to obtain DNA samples from those who are suspected of having committed burglaries—

💬 Edwin Perry: We know that.

That is a very good provision in the bill, as well, and I know that Mr Perry from New Zealand First will want to expand on it. The bill also extends compulsory DNA testing to serious offenders in prison for databank purposes, if they were committed for an offence before 1986. This is very good legislation. We should pass it through the House so we can continue the very good grip on law and order that the Labour-led Government is proud to have.

I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to support the second reading and to fully support the bill—unlike the Prostitution Reform Bill that New Zealand First vigorously opposed. Let us get back to this very good bill. Its aim is to amend the Criminal Investigations (Blood Samples) Act by extending the powers of the police to, firstly, allow DNA samples to be collected by mouth swab; secondly, allow DNA samples to be taken from persons suspected of committing burglary or entering with intent; thirdly, provide for compulsory DNA testing of inmates detained under a sentence of imprisonment, who are in custody for a relevant offence for which they were convicted prior to the commencement of the Act; fourthly, repeal the current requirement for a compulsion order hearing before a judge prior to a databank compulsion sample being taken from a person convicted of a relevant offence; fifthly, extend the range of material that may be used as a basis to compel a suspect to provide a DNA sample; and, sixthly, simplify and modify procedures or repeal significant requirements to reduce costs, improve efficiency, or ease administration.

New Zealand First upholds the principles underpinning this bill—that it is the basic right of all New Zealanders to live in a safe society, that the rights of victims are paramount, and that the offender’s rights are subject to the rights of both the victim and the State. Our 2002 manifesto in the last election, Keeping New Zealand First, clearly outlines our plan for law and order issues, including our desire to legislate to have all criminals DNA tested and records stored, and to introduce a requirement that every person arrested, irrespective of the seriousness or the nature of the crime, contribute a sample to the DNA databank. That would occur at the same time and in the same manner that applies at present for the fingerprinting of all those arrested, and would form an electronic record of detainees as opposed to a database of fingerprints. Mouth swabs would generally be used, as opposed to blood samples.

Forensic DNA profiling has been the most remarkable breakthrough in finding the perpetrators of horrendous crimes—crimes that otherwise would be impossible to solve. Here we have on our doorstep a way of bringing to account those people who commit heinous crimes against our innocents. There should be no hesitation whatsoever that this bill should be processed through the House and given the royal assent to become the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Act.

However, I have some serious reservations that the limited respective provisions of this bill mean that samples cannot be obtained compulsorily from all those who have committed relevant offences. That was a concern to a number of members on the Justice and Electoral Committee. The law should apply equally to those currently alive who have already demonstrated that they have a potential to commit a serious crime. An inmate who has done his or her time in prison but is fortunate to have been released a few days before the commencement of the Criminal Investigations (Blood Samples) Act, which came into force on 12 August 1996, should not be given any special privileges. We are looking at legislation of at least a decade ago, and justice should not be kind with time. Time and time again we have seen repeat offenders, and although we have been unable to DNA test absolutely everybody in this country, this bill will enable us to target a group that has a high probability of committing serious crime, and it will therefore aid the police in their investigations, which will save an enormous amount of time, resources, and manpower.

The bill in its present form seems to be generous, in that it has widened the provisions relating to the taking of samples from persons convicted of offences to also include those convicted of attempts to commit offences. That, however, is useless if it is not pursuant to a databank compulsion notice. The bill should recognise that it would be both in the interests of victims and in the public interest if the police were unfettered in their duties of enforcing the law by being able to issue databank compulsion notices, as legislation allows if they are authorised to do so by the Commissioner of Police.

The bill has provision for those receiving databank compulsion notices to request a hearing to have an opinion by a judge, on three grounds: the offence is not a relevant offence, the conviction is not one to which the bill applies or for which conviction has been quashed, and the taking of bodily samples by all three methods will cause serious harm to a person’s health. There are also other specified matters relating to service of all the content of the notice. These grounds should also be applied to the taking of mouth swabs. The Police Association places a high emphasis on crime-scene training, including preserving crime-scene sites, and emphasising to crime-scene staff the risk of the contamination, which has been a problem in past investigations. If police are able to breathalyse drivers randomly for alcohol, there is no reason why they should not also be able to take mouth samples.

It concerns me that the bill could be self-defeating when its own provisions can contradict the very reason for having the bill in the first place. I appreciate that human rights and quality assurance provisions should be incorporated into legislation, but if it is in the public’s interest for a person to be issued a databank compulsion notice, and the DNA is sampled only in extreme and glaring examples, why should the rights of that person prevail? It is all very well to ask the consent of the person providing the sample whether he or she minds whether a registered nurse, a medical technologist, or a phlebotomist takes the sample. Instead, we should specify who is the best to take the sample at a given time, and specify that there are sufficient quality controls in place to ensure the process is 100 percent error-free. I would hate to see legislative technicalities, political correctness, or lawyers’ self-interest standing in the way of public interest and safety.

There was a time when people thought it was a breach of human rights if they were stopped randomly for breath testing. Science and legislation made that possible, and, as a result, thousands of lives have been saved on our roads. We cannot back the sum statistically, because we have no way of knowing how many people would have died if those sorts of measures had not been put in place. This bill will let criminals know that if they commit crimes they will be caught. They can run but they cannot hide.

It will also prevent innocent people like David Dougherty from being wrongly convicted. He spent many years needlessly behind bars, whilst the true perpetrator, Nicholas Reekie, carried on with his deviant acts of sexual violence against children, women, and the elderly. It will also save millions in compensation claims and lengthy legal hearings. Teresa Cormack’s murderer thought he would not have to pay the price for his criminal and senseless act, which cost a sweet young girl’s life and left her family forever grieving. At least now they can find a small sense of peace in the knowledge that this person is behind bars at last.

I would like to think that this legislation would not just bring people to justice, but that it would prevent heinous crimes from occurring in the first place. How many murderers and rapists start off with assault, petty thieving and that type of deviant behaviour? The public are crying out to feel safe on the streets and in their own homes. People will think twice about their actions when they know they will be caught.

I commend the Law and Order Committee on its cooperation, across the political divide, in upholding the need for the police to be given sufficient power and resources to bring former and current criminals to justice. I conclude by fully endorsing the bill, and by encouraging all those deliberating on it to put public interest and safety at the forefront of their consideration. New Zealand First supports this bill.

The ACT party, looking at the bodily samples bill, has to rely on the work done by the Law and Order Committee and our own reading of what we can of the bill. With the Minister bringing in yesterday a series of technical amendments in a Supplementary Order Paper amounting to 25 pages, it is very hard to look at this bill as a parliamentarian should. It is going through under urgency—all its stages in one day. We had a 68-page bill to start with, with a commentary from the select committee of some 26 pages, and we were prepared to do what we could in some highly technical areas, on the basis of that. Then the Minister brought in Supplementary Order Paper 159 with all these amendments. What it means is that we have to go back to first principles.

I hope that in the course of the Committee stage my colleagues in the ACT party will find out the answers to a few simple questions. Why is it that DNA is not simply taken routinely from every person who commits an offence punishable by, say, more than 3 months’ imprisonment? Why is there not some understanding that the entire community could grasp, instead of pages and pages of technical requirements and distinctions between consent measuring and compulsion orders? Why cannot the community simply absorb the idea that if a person commits an offence of a certain degree of seriousness, that person will automatically have a DNA profile stored?

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: In fact, any offence.

Any offence, any conviction. It may be that traffic offenders do not have any particular predictable—

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Arrestable offence.

An arrestable offence, Mr Mapp suggests—but any offence with which there is some statistical probability of subsequent reoffending. Why is that not the case? I have another question. How do all of these provisions relate to the law’s only real concern—that the innocent go free and the guilty are convicted? I say that because as I go through the report I see that there is a whole lot of detail on concerns about process, and a great deal of prescription of the manner in which samples have to be taken.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: That’s right, because the people are presumed to be innocent until proved guilty—unless the member believes it to be otherwise.

It seems to me from the interjection of the Minister that he thinks that in some way DNA sampling is a punishment and that to take a sample is an evidence of conviction.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: No, generally we need consent from a person who is still deemed to be innocent for an intrusive process.

The Minister says that consent is required. Why is consent required? Is consent required for a fingerprint? What is the difference, I ask the Minister, between a fingerprint and DNA? What is the difference between taking a photograph and taking a DNA sample?

💬 Hon Phil Goff: How is it that the member can be such a libertarian on some issues, then pretend not to respect the civil liberties of others?

The Minister asks how can we be libertarians on some issues, and not be worried about civil liberties in relation to DNA. I am asking questions that are simply not answered. There is one very serious sign that the select committee addressed the issues entirely in terms of the Government view. That is found on page 23 of the commentary on the bill, where the committee deals with what it calls amendments outside the scope of the bill. The commentary states: “amendments aimed at reducing the potential for contamination of crime scene samples by the investigating officer, whether deliberate or accidental, are outside the scope of the bill.” I would have thought that that should have been the primary concern of this bill. The real issue for us all is not whether consent should be obtained—a simply evidential matter—but whether the evidence, once gained, could be misused, as appears to have been the case for Arthur Alan Thomas, or whether, as often suspected by other offenders, it is used for fitting up, where police decide that they will take justice into their own hands and manufacture the evidence. If there is a widespread community fear of that, then this bill should address that fear instead of having reams and reams of procedure to tangle up the police, and reams of protection against having to give a sample. The real focus here should have been on making sure that samples could not be planted at the site, and that samples could not be misread by scientists, whose main customers are the police and who become wearily suspicious and predisposed towards believing in the police case.

There has been enough evidence from the United States experience of the risk in having one body—as we do in New Zealand; we have the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. Even with the highest standards of integrity, that one body comes to know that its main client is the police. This bill should have been focused precisely on the things that the select committee members tell us it did not even touch, which, I say again, is the potential for contamination of crime-scene samples by the investigating officer, whether deliberate or accidental. Contamination, or planting, is what it is all about. From the ACT perspective we cannot understand why so much time has been taken, and why a bill that has been lying about in this form since 3 June—but first introduced in May last year; more than a year ago—has all this preoccupation with procedural correctness and does not address the main risk of injustice. The main risk, the thing we should all be alarmed about, is the prospect of the police deciding that they will do justice, as they see it, by manufacturing evidence or by being careless with evidence. As the select committee said, this bill does not even touch on that.

In his introductory speech to this second reading, the Minister referred repeatedly to success in fighting crime. Why does this bill not recognise that the greatest predictor of future crime now, and the most valuable information, would in fact be samples taken from youth offenders? Once again, this Government is establishing a pattern that says to young people: “Don’t worry about being responsible. We don’t treat your crime as real. If you commit a crime, even if it’s of adult viciousness you won’t be obliged to give a sample. You can’t be required to consent.” These young offenders are getting exactly the wrong message. Offenders should know that it is automatic that if they start down that path they will be readily detected in the future. They are the ones where a pattern has not yet been set, then established—that is, a pattern of regarding the law as a joke, and having the view that the community puts all sorts of technical trips in the path of the police and the justice authorities because it does not really mean what it says when it says that crime will not pay. This bill should have provided that age would be no obstacle to getting a sample. It should have simply said: “We judge by the crime; not by the status.” I am also concerned that the select committee allowed itself to be sidetracked by the so-called libertarians into worrying about retrospectivity. What does that have to do with it? In their discussion, committee members allowed themselves to treat the question of whether a sample can be taken as though it were a form of punishment. It is simply gathering evidence.

There is no reason for all the endless detail in the bill: how long after the conviction; when the application must be made; what status it had; and why the sample was not taken within a prescribed period. That is all utterly irrelevant if we see DNA sampling as being like fingerprints, or as being evidence—like taking a photograph—or as being an aid to gathering evidence for the court to consider. Instead, they have fallen into the trap of seeing this as some kind of punishment. It is not a punishment. It should be an automatic consequence of conviction. It should be an automatic consequence, indeed, of suspicion, in cases where the person has a prior record that reasonably leads to any expectation that it is legitimate to take him or her into account as the suspect population.

I see that the select committee took approximately 4 hours to hear the evidence and a total of 16 hours on this bill. I only wish it had been directed to recognising that for the law to work it must be simple and it must fit people’s intuitive expectations. Every offender or would-be offender in this country needs to know that any method that does not infringe on the rights of the innocent will be used to determine guilt or innocence.

I rise on behalf of United Future to support the second reading of this bill. We support the bill because it expands the range of offences for which DNA samples can be collected, as well as expanding the methods by which those samples may be collected beyond those listed in the Criminal Investigations (Blood Samples) Act. That Act has been superseded not only in advances in technology but also by an increasing recognition of the power of DNA profiling to apprehend our most dangerous criminals. The acceptance of buccal swabs as reliable samples for the purposes of DNA profiling means that the whole process of matching crime-scene evidence with the offender is now that much easier. Samples from inside the mouth are quicker to administer, much less invasive, and less susceptible to claims that they conflict with religious sensitivities, if that matters to people, and belonephobia, which is the fear of needles. By expanding the ambit of the Act from blood samples to bodily samples, the bill also provides some future-proofing in the likely eventuality that further advances will be made in the sampling and testing of DNA material.

The bill also expands the range of crimes to which these crime-fighting tools will be applied. In the case of burglary, the current law enables samples to be collected and entered on to the databank only from those convicted of burglary and entering with intent, for the purposes of matching with more serious crimes. This meant that the Act already recognised the gateway effect of burglary in terms of its relationship with sexual and violent crime, but did not allow police to collect from burglary suspects evidential samples that might help to convict them of other crimes associated with burglary. The inclusion of burglary suspects in the regime proposed by this bill remedies the situation, and also means that the DNA sampling and matching regime now treats burglary as a serious offence in itself, and rightly so. Although a large number of burglars leave at a scene DNA material that can be applied to profiles in the databank, if the match cannot be used as a basis for applying a suspect compulsion order for a burglary then yet another offending thug may avoid conviction.

In its wisdom the Law and Order Committee saw fit to add a number of sexual and violent offences to the sampling regime, and here I think there was a great deal of unanimity amongst not only United Future, New Zealand First, and National but also Labour. I congratulate the process on showing that unanimity. This is very much in keeping with the objectives of the original Act to ensure that it covers serious, violent, and indictable offences where DNA is likely to be left at the crime scene. The committee recommended that offences that endanger human life and all of those punishable by a sentence of at least 7 years be included. We also recommended that as the bill included attempted crimes, conspiracy to commit a serious offence should also be included. If police are able to apprehend an offender before a crime is actually committed but is clearly about to occur, then this hardly makes for front-page news, yet in this case at least one person, if not a number of people, would be saved the pain of becoming yet another victim. If we want to help the police to apprehend criminals before they ruin the lives of others, then we need to give them all the available tools to do so. The only difference between a crime committed and a crime contemplated is success, and to this extent we are quite happy to encourage failure.

Whilst United Future agrees with the select committee recommendations that seek to extend the range of relevant offences that are able to utilise DNA testing, we are strongly of the view that we should not stop there. We concur with the submission of the Police Association and also of the Sensible Sentencing Trust that DNA samples should be obtained from all offenders on arrest to create an even more potent crime-fighting tool. But Government members on the committee rejected that on the basis that it would necessitate a major rewrite of the law and therefore was outside the scope of the bill. This was the advice of the Office of the Clerk, and I acknowledge the difficulties that such a sizable amendment would present. The simple truth is that we did not want to wait another 2 years for a re-write to come through, and allow another range of scumbags to get through in the process at the moment.

We would like to revisit this law down the track with an amendment to expand the legislation even further. The main reason adopted by the Government, we think, was that by including all suspects in the testing regime we would be unnecessarily infringing on their personal liberty simply on the basis of those suspicions. The Government used the same rationale to reject the submission of the Police Association that offences punishable by a maximum of 3 years in prison be included—something that I thought would have at least represented a compromise position. As an aside, I note that most of the remaining violent offences that would fall into this category have since been included in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper, and we are grateful for that.

The argument that all crimes should not be included due to the protection of personal liberty is made by the very same people who also argue, quite rightly, that the use of buccal techniques should open up the number of offences for which DNA samples can be obtained because it is less invasive and less intrusive on personal liberties. How is it any more a breach of personal liberties than the current requirement of obtaining fingerprints for all arrests? That answer has never been given. As an example, I cannot understand why peeping and peering are not included in this bill. The reason given is that it is subject to a maximum sentence of a $500 fine upon conviction, and despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary from the police and criminal profilers, it is also claimed that peeping and peering is not the gateway to more serious offending that it is claimed to be. Of those in prison for violent and sexual offences from 1995 to 1998, only 2 percent had previous convictions for peeping, compared with the 45 percent of violent offenders and 25 of percent sexual offenders who had convictions for burglaries. But I say that even 2 percent is good enough if we can use DNA sampling to stop one peeping Tom from becoming a serial rapist. How do we exclude them from people who are simply casing the joint so they can commit a robbery?

There is another good argument as to why peeping should be included in the bill. The police know that this kind of offending leads to more dangerous sex crimes, so they will be tempted to book peeping Toms for observing with intent to commit a burglary so that they can be sure that their slimy genetic material is on file. If we do not include more crimes in this regime, then we are sending the message to the victims of those crimes that the resolution of those offences is not a priority for the Government or the police, and that is not fair on the police, who want to solve those crimes and make these people feel safe again. I have a potential solution. If the Government will not lower the bar on the types of crimes that should apply to this bill, then we could always increase the sentences for those crimes to 7 years’ prison and beyond. Another reason United Future would like to see this technique applied to other offenders is the potential for deterrence that it creates. By compelling those currently incarcerated to submit to a DNA sample, this bill may alter the rate of recidivism of those offenders when they leave prison. Knowing that the law enforcement authorities have their DNA profile on file should make any logical criminal reluctant to reoffend—criminals would know that a powerful evidentiary tool is readily available to be used against them.

In addition, the Law and Order Committee recommended that additional information be included on the sample compulsion notice given to offenders, advising them of the nature of the offence and what the sample will be used for. This should be a salutatory reminder of the forces stacked against the criminals should they lapse again, so why not extend it to all serious crime and create an even more wide-ranging deterrent effect? United Future supports this legislation because it leads down the right track, but it needs to go much further and include the widest possible range of offences if it is to be ultimately effective in nipping aspiring criminals and deviants in the bud and assisting the police in resolving crimes. Like the member from ACT who spoke before, we also have concerns that youth crime is subject to a different regime. Catching a criminal, and the sentencing that accrues from that, should not be dependent upon the age of the criminal. It should be directly in proportion to the crime committed and the offence that that crime imposes upon victims and society. We heartily recommend this bill because it is a very good step forward. We look forward to amendments further down the track to expand and entrench this legislation.

The Greens will be opposing this bill. We had concerns about it when it was first introduced, and although we support the provisions that allow the use of buccal samples as a less invasive way of obtaining DNA, we have expressed concern about the extension of the powers to take DNA samples by force or coercive means from people who are suspected—not convicted; merely suspects—of committing a burglary.

We are even more concerned about the bill as reported back from the Law and Order Committee because it now includes a number of other offences, and we believe that the bill as reported back goes beyond what are acceptable limits on the ability of the police to take samples by coercive means. I refer to appendix B of the select committee report, where it refers to a number of offences, many of them very serious offences, and also to any other offence punishable by a maximum penalty of at least 7 years’ imprisonment. Perhaps my memory is failing me, but as far as I recall that includes stealing a goat, and it seems rather bizarre that someone suspected of stealing a goat is able to have DNA compulsorily obtained from them.

We believe that this bill goes far too far, and we cannot support it. We will be supporting, during the Committee stage, the Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister. We believe that it does include a number of sensible provisions, and if the bill is to proceed it will be sensible to include those provisions. In particular, we think that allowing buccal samples to be taken from children under certain circumstances and with their consent is a sensible measure. We had discussions with the Minister about that, and we assured ourselves that there are some adequate safeguards to protect the rights of children in those circumstances. So we will support that Supplementary Order Paper. But we are unable to support the bill through further stages. I will not speak at great length about that now, but I will speak during further stages of the bill.

I rise to support this bill, which forms part of an important strategy by this Government to combat burglary. This Government recognises that criminals start off with burglary and often escalate on to far more serious crimes, including sexual and violent crimes, as my colleague from United Future Marc Alexander pointed out. Therefore, extending the ability of police to take DNA samples from burglary suspects is a vital component of attacking burglary. If those criminals are dealt with at that stage in their criminal careers, or if they do go on to later offend, they are more likely to be picked up further down the track.

DNA technology has moved on significantly since 1995, and this bill reflects that. At that time, it was thought that only blood would give accurate enough results in order to put someone in prison for a crime. The reality now is that buccal samples, which are far less expensive, and far less invasive, are able to do that. This bill will provide police with an excellent resource for combating burglary and serious crime, and I commend it to the House.

I am pleased to take a call on this bill, and I want to raise the issue of the seriousness with which this Minister takes the problem of serious heinous crime in New Zealand, when today he introduces a 23-page Supplementary Order Paper. That may be OK for him, because he has been planning this, but for members in the House who have only just had the opportunity to try to digest it today, it is totally unfair. On the other hand it gives an indication to the public of New Zealand as to whether this Minister is serious about fighting serious awful crime in New Zealand. I would suggest that the Minister think about whether he would show a more serious attitude by allowing this Supplementary Order Paper to go back to the Law and Order Committee so that it could be properly debated. It is totally unfair that he introduces this today in urgency when we will suddenly, after 4 years, rush this matter through the House.

On the other hand, this has now proven to be a regular modus operandi of a Government that I think, in the end, does not do things necessarily for the right reason, and finds itself in a position where it is coming up to the end of the year, and 4 years later I guess the Minister thinks: “Well, gosh, I guess it’s time, I’d better get this bill through the House.”, and so here we are.

It is worth reminding the House that he probably felt he needed to do something anyway. The Hon Tony Ryall had certainly progressed the work for the bill and was looking to address the matter before the 1999 election. He then had a member’s bill in the ballot and no doubt that would have put pressure on the Minister to do something about it.

That is absolutely not good enough. Serious crime is up, out there in real New Zealand, and the public is worried about whether it has a Government that is serious about fighting serious crime. I guarantee that there is no New Zealand person out there who thinks that, especially considering the Minister with the great barking he used to do when he was in Opposition, and the promises he used to make of how he would address these matters. Four years later, we are only just dealing with something on which a lot of the work had already been done when he came into power.

The original Act that underpins the bill today came into force in 1996. Since then, of course, the technology of DNA testing has moved on significantly, and accordingly this legislation updates the use of DNA testing as an effective crime-fighting tool. Goodness knows, the police need every tool they can get to fight the level of serious offending that is now going on in New Zealand and of which we see evidence daily.

Under the existing legislation there are two regimes for the collection of samples. The Part II suspect regime allows for blood samples to be obtained from those suspected of committing an indictable offence. While most people provide blood samples by consent, the New Zealand Police can apply to the court for a compulsion order if consent is refused. The Part III databank regime differs in that while any person over the age of 17 may be requested to provide a blood sample to store in the databank, he or she may be compelled to give a blood sample only following conviction for a relevant offence as listed in the schedule.

The main provisions of the bill have been traversed by previous speakers. They allow for the use of improvements in technology over the last 4 years. I shall focus on a couple of matters that have been raised by a previous speaker, the ACT MP Stephen Franks. I also want to ask why we are piffling around here, when, as I said, crime soars. For instance, why do we not extend the provisions to all those arrested? On the other side of the ledger there is the issue of civil liberties and the protection of individual rights. The select committee clearly covered that issue. But it would show a responsibility on the part of this House if we looked more seriously at extending the provisions of the legislation to include even those who are arrested on charges that have a penalty of potential imprisonment of 3 months or over, or a more extended time if necessary.

While it is important that we support this legislation, it does not go far enough. At the end of the day, the true benefit of the legislation will be known only by victims and their families if they are still around to talk about it, and that is the problem. No one responsible citizen out there would think that we had gone far enough in addressing matters of serious crime.

The other issue that was also raised previously by the United Future member of Parliament was concern about a different regime being applied to youth offenders. If members cast their minds back to some of the most serious crimes that have been committed over the last 12 months to 2 years, or so, the age of those offenders is a huge worry for law-abiding citizens, who are entitled to safety and security. Of course, with the awful rise in the use of the drug P, and it seems that a lot of younger people are getting involved in using that drug, one would have to question why the regime that applies to young offenders should be different. Again, those are matters that members in this House were elected to address, and it is not good enough that we have a regime that does not take into account the fact that the age of offenders has got younger, and the seriousness of crimes committed by young people has become more dire.

The select committee obviously worked its way through the issues put before it. I certainly agree that there needs to be a proper balance between the use and extension of crime-fighting tools such as DNA testing. That has to be balanced against the rights of the individual. No doubt the select committee report shows that the balancing act was one of the main issues addressed at the committee. But that being so, this bill does not go far enough. It does not address the worries and the concerns of law-abiding citizens out there in the real world. This bill does not go far enough. Serious crime is up. We see it for ourselves, day in and day out, on our television stations and in our newspapers. Ask the victims of serious crime what it is like to be at the receiving end of some of the heinous activity that is now going on in our country. Members should think about the pairing of this legislation with the rising use of the drug P and whether we address that problem in the very modest way we do.

Bill read a second time.

Instruction to Committee