Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill

I will be moving an amendment, which is more in the nature of a statement of intent. I am doing it because I believe the purpose of this bill is fundamentally too limited. It is fundamentally too modest, and that speaks enormously of the deficiency, or the paucity of imagination, of the Government. The Government has simply not taken on board that a DNA sample is the modern equivalent of a fingerprint, so it has produced a relatively complex bill, built on the 1995 legislation. It has then provided a 23-page Supplementary Order Paper.

I said, in my second reading speech and elsewhere, that DNA is the modern fingerprint. No one has any objections on civil liberties grounds to requiring persons who are arrested to give fingerprints. That is just seen as a normal and proper thing to happen. It is done for the purposes of identification, so that the people who are known risks are entered on a criminal database, not only in the case of a particular offence they have committed, but also for checking purposes with regard to any future offences. Basically, there is no other purpose for the taking of fingerprints. It is to provide proof, in certain circumstances, of a particular offence, but also to be entered on a database. I ask the Minister in the chair, Phil Goff, this basic question: why does the Government not take the leap of imagination that would be required to think forward and to understand that we are no longer in 1995, when blood samples had to be taken for DNA—and I can understand the concerns around that—and that the technology has moved on, so that the taking of a sample is no longer intrusive? It is now no more intrusive than taking a fingerprint.

On principle, I will be moving an amendment that states that the Act should apply to all offences that could carry a penalty of imprisonment. I have limited it to that. It could actually be wider, but I understand the Government’s and other parties’ concerns about widening it. As a matter of principle, surely we should be able to say that offenders who commit offences that carry a term of imprisonment—even if that penalty is not imposed—should be required to give a DNA sample, both in relation to the particular offence, for issues of proof in the trial, and to the database generally. I have put forward, as a matter of principle, an amendment that would establish that. Essentially, I ask the Government to look at our criminal law in a forward-thinking way and to appreciate that we are no longer locked into the past. The technology has evolved, DNA is the modern fingerprint, and the law ought to reflect that.

In my speech in the second reading debate I made a great deal about the failure of the Government to take the essential, critical steps that would get on top of crime. Now is the opportunity for the Government to demonstrate that it is serious about crime, and to change its whole way of thinking in relation to crime detection, so that this kind of technique could be used for a much broader purpose. I notice the Minister in the chair, the Hon Phil Goff, is consulting the officials. I would like him to take a call and say what is wrong, if anything, with the proposition that I have made. I appreciate that I have not provided a 23-page Supplementary Order Paper. He may feel that that sort of Supplementary Order Paper would be required for that kind of change. Nevertheless, as a matter of principle, the Minister may take on board that kind of change.

This is an important point, because I want Government members, even if they pass this bill into law today, which they undoubtedly will—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: With the member’s support.

Yes, we will support it. I want Government members to say that they do need to take a more back-to-basics, back-to-first-principles approach to this measure, and to look at what they are doing. I want them to say that, maybe, there needs to be some legislation—perhaps called the “DNA Samples Bill 2004”—that would require all people charged with an offence that carries a term of imprisonment to provide a DNA sample, irrespective of whether the offence is under the Crimes Act, the Transport Act, the Misuse of Drugs Act, or a whole host of other legislation. The general principle I am talking about is crimes, the seriousness of which can be measured according to whether they carry a term of imprisonment.

I do not suggest going quite as far as one could. One could simply substitute “DNA” for “fingerprints”. In that case, a DNA sample would be taken for all offences, many of which do not carry terms of imprisonment. That would be one approach. But the approach that I suggest, which would essentially lead to a new bill and would treat this legislation as merely an interim or a holding measure, would make a real difference. It would be a meaningful change to the law that would give a real tool to the police and the law enforcement authorities of this nation. I hope the Minister does take a call. I have set out what I think is a sound case in principle for a change that would make a genuine difference to our criminal law. My proposal would enable the officials to work over the summer to produce legislation that does not have to be 100 pages long and would establish some basic rules that would give a new way of detecting offending.

I take the Government at its word in some respects. When it says it is serious about crime, I would like to think, on behalf of all New Zealanders, that it is. This would be one way the Government could actually—

💬 Rodney Hide: Why would you believe it on that?

This would be one way the Government could demonstrate that. It could demonstrate it by way of action, as opposed to words. As I said in my speech in the second reading debate, we have seen big increases in crime, and particularly in violent crime. I want the Government to say that it understands it has not done enough in the last 4 years, that the Sentencing Act ended up becoming something of a damp squib, that the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill should be an interim measure only, and that a meaningful measure is required. I suggest to the Minister that if he introduces such legislation to the House in 2004, he would get consent from the Opposition parties. He would get consent from New Zealand First, from the ACT party, and from the United Future party. There was one party only that I did not mention, which was the Green Party. All other parties in this Parliament are serious about crime, and are willing to cast their vote for a proper measure that recognises that changes in technology enable the sorts of measures that are necessary to get on top of crime. So I say to the Minister that when we on the Opposition side of the Chamber ask for a considered, fresh approach to crime, we are not doing it just for the purposes of filibustering, but are suggesting it as a serious measure.

I understand that the Minister is likely to vote against the amendment. That is why I have suggested that he take the idea to the officials and produce new legislation—a new bill. I ask that he give the select committee a serious opportunity to ask whether the world is different from the way it was in 1995. Have things changed since 1998? Is this new technology moving on? Is it time to take a fresh approach and say that yes, the technology has matured?

Our understanding is clear. DNA is the new fingerprint. Let us have that form of database, rather than one that rests on a technology that is now well over a century old: that of taking fingerprints.

I am pleased to follow my colleague Dr Mapp, because I do want to commend his amendment to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Phil Goff. I would like the Minister to take a call. He knows that we support this bill. It makes absolute sense to support the bill, no matter that criticism has been levelled at the Minister for the length of time that he has taken to bring it to the House. However, I would have hoped that the 4-year delay, in the context of the advances that have been made in technology and of the huge upward sweep of serious crime in this country in recent years, might have influenced him to seriously consider extending the provisions of this bill.

I indicated in my second reading speech that although there is a view that DNA testing swabs should be applied to all people who are arrested, like my colleague I certainly do not go as far as that. There is the underlying principle of balancing the rights of the individual against the measures we take to protect the security and safety of law-abiding citizens. But some consideration by the Minister to applying this technology to those arrested on charges that are punishable by a term of imprisonment, I do not think goes too far in the current environment. No doubt the Minister will take a call and explain why he possibly will not support the amendment proposed by my colleague. However, Dr Mapp will have the support, I have no doubt, of all parties in this House other than the Greens. The Greens obviously want the balance to be so weighted that they would rather see law-abiding citizens at the mercy of heinous offenders than be serious about addressing crime in this country. So, as I say, my colleague’s proposed amendment is a good one.

I would go further than Dr Mapp, and suggest to the Minister that perhaps he would consider—maybe even over the next 12 hours, if he will not do so now—whether it is possible to have that amendment included in the bill, so that we can deal with it now. We would not then have to come back and tinker with the legislation after Christmas, or have a new bill after Christmas, as my colleague says. Perhaps we are able to deal with the amendment now, because the speeches made by my colleagues on the Opposition side of the House are clearly in favour of an extension to the use of this technology, and there may be a way that it can be done before the end of the Committee stage.

Such a change is clearly supported by the police, who actually suggested that the Law and Order Committee go further than it did. They are at the forefront of fighting crime. They are the people in whom we vest the safety of New Zealanders. The police are the people who are given the burdensome task, the huge task, of fighting rising levels of serious crime with, unfortunately, limited tools in their tool kit. Although they are, no doubt, very pleased that this legislation will now see its way through the Committee, they clearly consider that their task would be far better enhanced and made a lot easier if they were given more tools.

I rise to reply briefly to the points raised by members. Dr Mapp seemed to suggest I should have changed this legislation 4 years ago. Perhaps I could remind him that at the time I became the Minister, the legislation was not yet 4 years old. It was a new bill. It was passed by that member’s Government and came into effect in 1996. I think he was even a member of the select committee that considered the bill. I recall sitting on that committee, and the then National Government was adamant that the bill should not be extended to cover even burglary. I had a different view of that, because in 1996 burglary was running at a rate of 90,000 reported offences a year—90,000. I knew, and the select committee heard evidence, that burglary is a precursor offence to more serious offending. There is a clear link between burglary and serious sexual and violent crimes. That is why very soon after becoming Minister, I put the policy process in train to extend the legislation to cover burglary.

This Government has done an extraordinary job in getting burglaries down from 90,000 a year to 60,000. That is an extraordinary drop in offending rates, and we want to make further progress still in that area. Nevertheless, I believe that burglary should be an offence for which there can be compulsion orders for DNA sampling, and that is why I brought this bill in. I listened carefully to the submissions on the bill that were made to the select committee, and I agreed to take it even further so that all offences imprisonable by 7 years or more would be covered. All serious offences are now covered, plus some less serious offences. The New Zealand Police Association put forward three precursor offences to burglary, so we have put those in, as well.

Clearly, in legislation of this nature, given the time and the money expended, not only in taking DNA but also in processing it, the focus should go where the priorities lie. The priorities are in terms of serious crimes, and that is why this bill has remarkably expanded the numbers of people who, as suspects, will be required to give DNA samples, and I applaud that. The country applauds that. All parties but one in Parliament will vote for it. We have done that job, and I can tell the member that the number of DNA samples—blood samples—taken in the last 2 years alone has more than doubled. So this Government is doing more than ever before—

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: You haven’t answered the point I am making.

Dr Mapp should listen rather than just talk. He asked questions, and I am about to answer them. He asked whether the world has changed since 1995. It has indeed, and I will ask members to share with me the graph I have before me, which is taken from the New Zealand crime statistics for 2002-03, from the office of the Police Commissioner. I will show it to the Committee. It graphs crime statistics between 1995 and 2003 per 10,000 New Zealanders, and, lo and behold, shows that the incidence of crime since 1995 has gone down. That is according to the Police Commissioner. So the member was right: the world has changed. Not only have crime figures gone down but, I am proud to say, according to police figures, crime resolution rates have gone up. Crime is down, resolution rates are up, and there is more use of DNA.

This legislation dramatically expands the use of DNA, but we have set its use at a level that most New Zealanders would regard as sensible. Any serious offence is now covered by this legislation. DNA samples can be required from anybody in this country who commits a serious crime. Most New Zealanders think that is sensible. The National Party in Opposition is much braver than it was in Government; it wants to go much further now. This bill already goes much further than that Government was prepared to go 4 years before I became the Minister of Justice.

As previously mentioned in this debate, New Zealand First supports this bill. There is not a lot more that I would like to say, but it would be wrong of me to mention that New Zealand First did not have some concerns with this bill as it traversed the select committee. One concern that we promoted was people being DNA-tested on arrest, but, as we have heard today, that was overturned for the reasons mentioned in the Chamber by the Minister. New Zealand First pushed the second issue—the issue of burglary—in the select committee, and we are pleased that it has now become part of the bill. We believe that burglaries are an apprenticeship to crime and we are therefore pleased that the bill addresses the issue.

Just recently in the Wairarapa, a heinous crime was committed in respect of little Coral Burrows. I was involved in the search, which for me lasted approximately 6 hours. I believe that DNA will probably play a very important role in supplying further evidence in that case. Even though someone has already admitted to it, he has yet to be convicted.

DNA was mentioned here today by one of our colleagues with regard to the drug P. Again, I believe that DNA will play a very important role in the fight against that drug. The positives out of this bill are that it will lower the crime rate—or make criminals aware that they will not get away so easily in respect of some of those heinous crimes—and there will be a large cost-saving to the police, so that their resources can be spent in other areas to combat other crimes. It will also prevent the locking up a large number of staff in investigations, as is currently happening in solving some of these crimes. Just recently, something like 20 detectives were put into the Wairarapa to try to find that little girl, Coral Burrows.

Some very positive things are coming out of this bill, and New Zealand First supports it. It will curb heinous crimes and capture within its provisions those criminals who may still be in prison and who have yet to be DNA-tested for some crimes that are still unsolved out there in the community.

I very much appreciated the Minister rising to his feet and endeavouring to answer my colleagues’ questions. However, I do not think he addressed the issue raised, both at the Committee stage and in the second reading speeches, of DNA tests being the modern equivalent of the fingerprint identification process. I would certainly appreciate—as would many who are listening—hearing the Minister’s views on that. Again, I have to agree with my learned colleague Dr Mapp that, in essence, when we talk about things having moved on, that is one of the areas where they have—that is to say, whereas in the old days the fingerprint was the main means of identification, today its equivalent, the DNA test, is, and I think most people accept that.

If that is the case, and we on this side of the Chamber certainly believe it is, then why is it such a big call—as it seems to be in the Minister’s mind, and in the Government’s position—that such testing is not extended to all those who are arrested, say, on charges punishable by imprisonment? Why, in 2003, does that seem such a big call? There will come a time, given the convenience of the DNA test, that fingerprinting will probably fall into misuse. I ask my honourable colleague whether that would be the case.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Yes.

So, as I say, we regard DNA testing as the equivalent of fingerprinting, and, in a very short space of time, that process will be seen as being out of date.

I would be very grateful if the Minister would get to his feet and give us the benefit of his thinking on that issue. The issues of civil liberties and of the rights of individuals disappeared when their fingerprints could be taken, anyway. That is the point. If we now have a modern form of identification that is clearly simpler and quicker to use, then why should we not move to that point? The other thing I flag is the issue of who should administer the test, and we certainly have some views on that. We do not think the legislation goes far enough in that regard.

One of the scheduled offences that should be included in the bill relates to peeping and peering. There is a very good reason for that. That offence is regarded by many as being a precursor to sexual violence. Why would we not include in the legislation the men who do that? They are slime-bags, anyway. Anybody who indulges in peeping and peering deserves to fall within the authority of this legislation. It is not good enough that they do not. They are slime-bags, and every tool available to the kit should be used. Mita Ririnui frowns, but I say that he should think about those things.

The reason I am taking a call is that the Minister said he was addressing the concerns I raised when I said that as matter of principle—and I recognise that it is an issue of principle, and I can concede that the Government may not wish to totally overturn its thinking about the bill by one two-line clause—why is it that all persons charged with offences capable of carrying a term of imprisonment should not give a DNA sample? I presume that the Minister thought he had answered me, but he did not. It is quite a direct, straightforward proposition. Did he say that yes, the ministry will look at the proposition, and that if it seems a reasonable proposition then he will introduce legislation next year? Did he answer my simple question?

I listened for over 5 minutes, and I did not hear a single, direct statement that the Ministry of Justice would be directed to examine that basic proposition. I did not put the proposition forward without a lot of thought. I have thought about the issue over the years, and the Minister well knows that I have referred to DNA as being the modern fingerprint. I ask the Government, with all its resources—those hundreds of bureaucrats, paid by hardworking, law-abiding New Zealand taxpayers—why it would not undertake the research necessary to consider the proposition. That is the proposition that was put to the Minister. Instead, he wittered on about what had happened in 1996 and 1998, and all those sorts of things, and about the huge schedule. He was, as the Speaker says, addressing the question, not answering the question. So often, on this side of the Chamber, we have heard Ministers address questions, but not answer them.

I believe that I put a reasonable proposition to the Minister. I was not making a political point, as such. I put a reasonable proposition for the Ministry of Justice to consider. If it thinks fit after all its deliberations, then a bill could be introduced to the House in 2004 that would embody that proposition. Obviously it would replace the 1996 legislation, and obviously it would replace the amendment bill of 2002. But that is the way the law develops, particularly when we are talking about a new form of technology, which everyone now considers an effective form of identification. My colleague referred to the fact that in a few years time we will think of fingerprint databases as quaint and old-fashioned. We are asking the Government to consider the proposition that it should look at DNA as the new technology that would essentially replace fingerprinting.

My final point is that the Minister, thinking that he had the killer fact, said that crime is down since 1995. He was not prepared to dig beneath the surface of the fact, because he knows that the crime that concerns New Zealanders—violent crime—is up. Can the Minister get on his feet in this Chamber and deny that violent crime has gone up in the last year? He knows that is the case. He knows that violent crime has increased across the board. He might say that burglaries are down, and he is right. Burglaries are down over an extended period of time, not due to police surveillance operations, but largely due to the fact that the public have had to take their own measures and install burglar alarms. Now we can hardly see a house in New Zealand without a burglar alarm. That is why crime is down.

I think it is important—so that the public of New Zealand knows just how serious, or not, the Government and the Minister are about violent crime—that we mention again two or three of those areas the Government was not prepared to address for fear of upsetting those who came to the select committee, and whose primary angle was the issue of civil liberties and protection of individual rights. My colleague and I have said enough times already, that we certainly understand the need to balance the issue of civil liberties, and the rights of the individual, against the need to properly equip the police. As I said earlier to the Minister, he should tell it to the public. Tell the public that the Government is serious about violent crime, because the public all know—they see it daily and weekly on their television sets—that violent crime is up. Tell them, and the victims, that the Government is serious about addressing violent crime. Tell them, because in the end—while the Minister might stand and answer our queries, and maybe make light of them if he wants to—the public of New Zealand have the right to expect that members of this Parliament will discharge their responsibilities in an honourable way, and take all possible steps to make sure that public security and safety are being properly addressed.

Including offences punishable by 3 years imprisonment was recommended by the Police Association. The select committee and Government members considered that these offences were not serious enough to warrant such an intrusion on personal liberties. Government members on the committee considered that it was inappropriate to include other suggested offences, which included peeping and peering—they were not considered serious enough. Government members did not believe there was sufficient evidence to support the belief that peeping and peering would advance to more serious sexual offences.

Where do they get off? Where are they coming from? I tell them to get into the real world. It is known that such offences are often precursors to serious sexual offending. Who wants peepers and peerers standing outside bedrooms, peeping and peering? I certainly do not, and neither does any reasonable, law-abiding citizen out there in good old New Zealand.

The other issue was that of DNA sampling. It was not recommended that all offenders be DNA-sampled on arrest. The Government members on the committee considered that to be outside the scope of the bill. That is a cop-out. If we are serious in this Chamber about looking after the safety and security of law-abiding New Zealanders, then we should be serious about considering what, in my view, in the current environment, are serious submissions. That is not to be. The reality is, as we have already said, that violent crime is up. The Minister can take statistics and make them sound as if the Government is doing all it can to address the issue of violent crime—well, it is not. The figures show that violent crime is up.

I say to the Māori members on the other side of the Chamber that it would be great if they could take a call and tell us why they agree with every single thing their Government does, even when a lot of it does not make sense. A lot of it is just too modest for words and does not really address the issue that a lot of victims of violent crime are our people—Māori people. I say to Minister Tamihere—who is great at coming to the Chamber and rarely taking a call—that rather than wittering away over there—

Both Dr Mapp and Mrs te Heuheu have raised the question of violent crime. This bill is about compulsion orders for particular offences. What seems to have gone right over their heads is that every violent crime now subjects the offender or the suspect to a compulsory DNA test if he or she does not give consent. So the issue of violent crime has been dealt with firmly by this legislation.

Mrs te Heuheu raised the matter of peeping and peering. I presume that Mrs te Heuheu was not on the Law and Order Committee, because otherwise she would have been aware of the information that was given to that select committee. She may not know, for example, that peeping and peering is regarded as such a serious crime in this country that it is a non-imprisonable offence and it is subject to a maximum fine of $500. We are talking about taking compulsorily DNA samples before a person has been convicted. The presumption of innocence still exists. We have considered it to be sufficiently important that where the alleged offence is serious, a compulsion order can be gained for particular offences, but not non-imprisonable offences and not one that is regarded under the law, and has been by successive Governments, as being a minor offence.

What motivated this bill was my strong belief that those who commit burglary will go on to commit serious sexual and violent offences, and the statistics given to the select committee back that up. Forty-five percent of violent offenders and 25 percent of sexual offenders in that group had a prior conviction for burglary. There is a clear linkage between burglary and going on to more serious offences of a violent and sexual nature.

Then we looked at peeping and peering. How did peeping and peering compare in regard to the causal link between that offence, and going on to commit a serious one? Two percent went on to commit a serious offence. Ninety-eight percent of peepers and peerers did not go on to commit a violent or sexual offence. There were not very many of them—it is only 76 people. It is marginal. We are talking about burglary as an offence here. There are 60,000 recorded burglaries a year. That is 60,000 offences—that makes a huge difference to the use of those DNA samples for crime investigation and as an evidential tool. The member has taken three calls and wittered on about peeping and peering, when there is no causal link and there are 76 of them. So for God’s sake, let us move on to something a little bit more serious than that.

I come to Dr Mapp’s point. He asked why we should not take DNA samples as we take fingerprints. The member may be aware that fingerprints are taken once a person is arrested. We are talking here about a bill that allows samples to be taken before a person is arrested; but whether before or after arrest, a person is presumed innocent. Once convicted, all of those people can be required to put their DNA on a database. But before a person is arrested, the presumption of innocence prevails, particularly when the crime is at the lesser end of offending. This bill is about making compulsion orders available for offences where they are somewhat serious offences.

I have to say that the ACT party does not have a member on the Law and Order Committee, so we have been very interested to hear what has been going on at the committee, and some of the submissions that were presented. I take exception to what the Minister has just been saying. He has been trying to back up the fact that he says his Government is tough on crime, when everybody knows that the Labour Government is soft on crime. If you look at what laws they have passed in this House—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot bring the Chair into the debate. She has said: “If you look”, which is referring to me.

I am sorry. If anybody looks at the laws that have been passed in this House, they will know that the most disgraceful legislation of all has been the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. We now have sentences that can be reduced down to one-third, so if somebody gets 9 years, he is out in 3. On top of that, we have serious offenders who are on home detention. We have people sentenced to community work and they do not even turn up. That was the big revelation over the weekend. They are sentenced to 100 hours of community work, and what happens? They do not turn up and the poor probation officers have a problem on their hands. But does this Government seem to care? No. It talks tough but it does nothing.

I want to talk a little bit about DNA sampling, because DNA technology is the most effective crime-fighting tool ever invented. We should be expanding DNA technology to the widest possible level. I want the Minister to take a call to answer a couple of very, very important questions. With all this DNA stuff going on, what is the Government going to do about the critical shortage of workers at Environmental Science and Research? We already know that there is a year-long waiting list for samples from burglary and so on to be analysed by that institute. That means that the case has to be put on hold for a year, people are on bail for a year, and the police cannot actually get on with finishing the job, because of the backlog at Environmental Science and Research. When it comes to worse crime, like methamphetamine-related crime, the cops know they have to wait for 2 years before those labs will be investigated by Environmental Science and Research.

I am sure the Minister will tell us that the Government has more scientists coming out from England and so on, but I want him to tell us whether the Government is going to give the police specific ring-fenced funding for DNA testing. Under the points in this bill, DNA testing will be much more comprehensive. The police at the moment have to find that from within their budgets, and we are talking about a police force that is still understaffed, under-resourced, and over-stressed, with a Government that is squeezing police funding every single year, compared with what used to happen, as a percentage of all Government spending. The Minister can shake his head but if he looks at the figures he will see that that is the case. The real numbers have gone up but the percentage of Government spending has gone down since Labour has been in power.

I want to reflect on some of the advantages of DNA technology. The information I have comes from the Home Office in Britain, where they have comprehensive funding for DNA technology and competitive work in the actual sampling of DNA testing so that the analysis is done not only by a Government agency but by the private sector, which I think is the model that New Zealand needs to duplicate.

The Home Office knows that if burglary does not have DNA samples associated with it, only 15 percent of those cases are solved, whereas with DNA 58 percent are solved. As far as non-burglary offences are concerned, if there is no DNA only 10 percent of those cases are solved; but if there is DNA, 54 percent of those crimes are solved.

So it goes on. Regarding property theft we find that if there is no DNA only 6 percent of those crimes are solved, and with DNA evidence 51 percent of those crimes are solved. The numbers are overwhelming. DNA solves crimes, but we have to have a Government that has a commitment to solving crime and is prepared to resource the police properly so that those crimes can be solved in a timely fashion. In England the DNA samples take 2 weeks to come back; here it is 2 years.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): Very briefly, in response to that member, there was a problem with Environmental Science and Research because of staff turnover and an unexpected increase in work volume. She will be pleased to know that the number of staff in this area has now been increased. Environmental Science and Research aims to clear the backlog by June 2004. In fact, in the last 12 months it has completed 3,000 analyses, whereas its projected target was only 2,500. On the question of the police, we have the highest number of police officers ever and the biggest budget ever.

I have to say that was an absolutely pathetic response from the Minister of Justice. He got up and read from some notes that somebody had given him, without knowing what he was talking about. I want him to put on the record how many new staff are coming into Environmental Science and Research. We know that institute has been woefully understaffed and overstressed. People were leaving because of the stress.

He is telling us that all crime samples will now be completed by June 2004. Can he put on the record that all methamphetamine cases will be analysed by 2004? Is he prepared to put that on the record? I know that the police will be absolutely delighted to know that an end is in sight. At the moment they ask themselves why they are doing their job, why they are busting these labs, when they know that they will have to wait for 2 years for results while the criminals go free and set up new labs all over the place, while more methamphetamine is being put on the streets, while more people are being hooked on methamphetamine, and while there is more violent crime.

It is this Minister’s Government that is responsible for all of that. Rather than giving wishy-washy, hopeless responses, the Minister should put on the record exactly what he means. If he cannot do that, then let us ask some members of the Government to stand up and put on the record what they intend to do in this area.

This whole area of DNA testing and solving crime goes to the very heart of what New Zealanders expect from a Government. The maintenance of law and order is a core responsibility of Government. I can tell the Minister in the chair, Phil Goff, that right now there are people all over this country who are afraid. They are afraid of being pushed around by thugs on the street, of being burgled in their homes, of being victims of home invasions, and so on, and now they are even more afraid that somebody down the road will get himself or herself high on P and come and do something ridiculous to them—something dangerous and horrible. The Government’s response to what is a major crisis in this country has been absolutely pathetic. [Interruption] Mr Tamihere can laugh. He should go into Māori communities, where he will find that that possibility is one of their biggest concerns, yet all he does is sit there and smirk and laugh.

To get to the point, it is all very well for a Government to pass a law that makes it seem as though it is getting tough on something, but this bill is incredibly complicated, as other speakers who looked at it during the select committee process have said. It is terribly complicated. It should be simple, and it should also be resourced properly. I want the Minister to tell us exactly what he means in terms of resourcing, because what we have heard from the Government is a whole lot of wishy-washy stuff that makes it sound as if it is getting tough on crime, when actually it is not. If this bill worked properly, it would solve hundreds of thousands of crimes in this country. But it is not just a matter of the law; it is the resources, and it is having the right number of police in the right place at the right time who are able to do the job—it is a whole raft of things. The Government may think it seems tough by passing a law, but that is simply not good enough. It has to make sure that all the bits of the jigsaw puzzle are put in place so that the police can do their job effectively, catch criminals, and hold them to account, and so that we have a sentencing regime that puts people in prison, if they deserve it, for the whole period of their sentence. Instead, we have a hopeless Government that allows criminals to get out of prison after serving only a third of their time. We do not have a proper regime in New Zealand that gets tough on law and order. This bill could be the start of something new, but I suspect that it will not be resourced properly, and the police will not be able to use it properly, because they will not be given the tools.

I reiterate that DNA is an incredibly important tool. I suspect that if the police were able to go through all unsolved crimes, using new DNA technology and matching samples with samples from every single prisoner in prison at the moment, and samples from all the other serious offenders who have submitted DNA samples—if the police were given the money to do that—then many, many serious crimes would be solved.

I want to take a very brief call to correct what I believe is a mistaken viewpoint put across by the Minister of Justice. Essentially, the legislation applies to the taking of DNA samples from people where the charge carries a sentence of 7 years or more. The bulk of offences are in that category. Everyone agrees with that. No one disputes that. That is not the issue. The issue is the taking of samples from all offences subject to imprisonment. The Minister absolutely refuses to answer that question. Will he direct his ministry to examine the proposition that everyone who is charged with an offence, who is arrested, be required to provide a DNA sample where there is the prospect of a sentence of imprisonment? That is a much wider category of offence than is provided in this bill.

It comes back to the simple proposition that DNA is the modern fingerprint. We have asked and asked the Minister to address that simple question. Instead, he evades it. One can only assume that he evades it because he might be embarrassed by the answer. Alternatively, he may be evading it because he is not willing to ask his officials to do the serious work, as he knows we are right and he does not want to be shown up. We on this side of the Committee ask the Government to think again, take a realistic approach, and answer our assertion that it talks tough but acts soft. If the Government does not put that proposition to the ministry, then we are entitled to say it is an example of a Government that talks tough but, when it comes to the crunch, acts soft.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 159 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to section 4(3) in clause 7 has been ruled out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee, and the Minister has an amendment to clause 7.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to insert new clause 7A be agreed to:

to insert the following new clause:

7A This Act applies to all offences which can carry a penalty of imprisonment.