Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This is an important bill, and I have no doubt that the ability of the police to fight serious crime, including burglary, will be greatly enhanced by this legislation. The bill is a comprehensive overhaul of the Criminal Investigations (Blood Samples) Act of 1995. That Act has served the police well and has provided a sound framework for obtaining blood samples for DNA purposes to assist with police investigations.

However, DNA technology has advanced since 1995. It is becoming possible to extract accurate profiles from ever-smaller quantities of material. As the technology has advanced, the increasing importance and potential of DNA as a crime-fighting tool has become more broadly recognised and understood. It is important that the law and procedures surrounding the taking and use of DNA samples keep pace with new technology, to ensure that the potential of DNA is realised. That is what the bill does. Mouth or buccal samples are now able to provide DNA profiles of the same quality as those that blood samples provide. Buccal swabs are a less invasive and less expensive alternative way of getting DNA. It is time that the law recognised this fact and allowed the police to use such samples for evidential purposes. The bill makes that change by allowing buccal samples to be taken from suspects as an alternative to blood.

When the original Act was passed the DNA-sampling regime did not apply to burglary suspects. That means that currently the police cannot compel a suspect to provide a DNA profile to match against the burglary scene sample, and that has resulted in known burglars escaping punishment. This bill rectifies that situation. Burglary is a serious crime. It is highly invasive, and often a precursor to much more serious violent and sexual offending. Labour campaigned on a promise to allow the use of DNA as an investigative tool to cover burglary, and this bill delivers on that commitment. The incidence of burglary has already dropped significantly since the Government came into office, due largely to the substantial investment in police numbers, and the police budget in the last 4 years. Resolution rates are up. There is no doubt that allowing the use of DNA samples from burglary suspects will further improve that situation.

Similarly, the potential of DNA as an investigative tool in a wide range of circumstances is also reflected in a broad extension of the schedule of relevant offences to cover all offences punishable by at least 7 years’ imprisonment, and attempts or conspiracies to commit relevant offences. The bill also introduces new procedures into the principal Act that largely reflect the move since 1995 of DNA sampling into the mainstream as an investigative tool.

Perhaps the most significant of those is the new procedure governing the gaining of compulsory samples for the DNA databank, under Part III of the Act. Where previously the police had to apply to a judge for a databank compulsion order, under the new regime the police will simply issue a compulsion notice requiring a convicted person to give a sample for the databank. The offender has the safeguard of the notice having to be approved by a commissioned senior police officer, and of being able to challenge the notice in the court. The presumption, therefore, of the new regime is that the police should be able to take databank samples from those convicted of serious offences, as standard procedure. This will result in considerable streamlining of procedure, and, consequently, savings in time and in money.

The bill also contains an important provision that will allow, retrospectively, those still in prison for serious offences—that is, those offences contained in the schedule of the original Act—to have samples taken compulsorily for the databank. Parliament should never enter lightly into retrospectivity of a bill’s application. However, in the limited circumstances contained in this bill retrospectivity is justified. The original Act had no retrospective application, which means that samples from serious violent and sexual offenders in prison in 1995—many of whom are still there, such was the seriousness of their offending—have never been entered into the databank. This retrospective provision, which comes within the provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, will cover many of New Zealand’s most serious offenders, and it is vitally important that their DNA is recorded. I only wish the National Government had had that foresight when it passed the Act in 1995.

The bill also places new procedures around the taking of DNA samples from children, should a child be suspected of certain indictable offences. The regime is a consent-only regime where the police request, with a parent’s consent, that a child provides a buccal sample. This will allow the police in appropriate circumstances to use a DNA profile obtained from a child suspect in support of an application for a Family Court declaration that the child is in need of care and protection on a specified ground—that is, because of his or her offending.

A raft of other amendments are made to the principal Act as a result of the bill. These amendments will collectively greatly improve and streamline the operation of the Act. Some people have expressed civil liberties concerns about this bill. It is important that we recognise that the taking and retaining of bodily samples do represent some encroachment on civil rights. But as with all investigative tools, it is necessary to balance those rights with the potential to use such samples to solve and prevent crime—to prevent victimisation, and protect innocent New Zealanders from the traumatic consequences of others’ offending. I am satisfied that this legislation strikes an appropriate balance. Suspect compulsion and databanking are limited to serious offences. DNA will not be taken and kept from law-abiding New Zealanders or even those who might make a one-off, minor transgression. The retrospective application of the bill is limited to those most serious offenders who are still in prison. This is an appropriate balance.

This legislation represents a comprehensive overhaul of the 1995 Act. It updates the Act to reflect that DNA is now a vital part of mainstream policing and has the potential to solve a great deal more serious crime. One of these serious crimes is burglary—a crime excluded from the suspect provisions in the original 1995 Act. In now extending the Act to cover this crime, a pre-election commitment by the Labour Party is fulfilled. This bill cements the place of DNA as a powerful crime-fighting and investigative tool. It greatly streamlines the procedures around the taking and use of DNA. More serious criminals will be convicted, more historic crime will be cleared, and burglary resolution rates will improve, as a result of this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

I am pleased to take a call on the third reading of this bill. National, of course, supports the bill—we made that clear to the Minister at the commencement of the Committee stage. We certainly recognise the advances that have been made in DNA technology in the last 10 years. As I mentioned earlier, just prior to going out of Government in 1999, National had already put a considerable amount of work in place to update this area of activity.

The Minister said that the ability of the police would be greatly enhanced by the provisions of this bill. Of course, he is right; we do not dispute that fact. However, the very fact that the police wanted more than has been provided suggests that they do not think the bill goes far enough. After all, they are in the front line in the fight against violent crime, and National would have supported further extensions to this legislation. Those were indicated during the Committee stage, as well.

As I said, it is proper that the House supports this legislation. It is of some concern that the Greens do not. In an environment where violent crime is up, it baffles belief that there is a party that purports to stand here for the rights of New Zealanders, but does not support legislation that enhances the State’s ability to ensure the security and safety of law-abiding New Zealanders. It baffles belief that there is a party in this House that does not support this bill. I would be interested to see Green members trying on a public platform to justify why they do not want to help the police in their fight against violent crime in particular, and why they are happy to be associated with a sort of flim-flam approach to justice. Most New Zealanders would be baffled, as well.

This legislation takes account of modern techniques and advances in technology over the last few years. National says that in time DNA technology will replace fingerprinting. We do not really understand why the Government was shy about extending the use of this technology even more. We in Parliament ought to show the public that we are serious about their safety and security, and about tackling serious crime. The real test of whether the Minister has achieved what he says he set out to achieve by this piece of legislation will only be known by those who will unfortunately continue to be victims of serious crime, and be fearful in their homes at night because of the levels of violence that have escalated in this country over the last few years. They are the people of concern here, not whether some political party sounds as if it is smarter than another one—not at all.

In that context, we support this legislation, and the Minister has widespread support in the House. But he should have been bolder and shown that he cared about the safety of New Zealanders, and over the last 4 years he has had the opportunity to do so. He certainly took the opportunity to update the 1995 legislation, but we think he was not bold enough, and we are not on our own in that sense—the police and the Police Association sought further extensions still.

I want to pick up on a theme that was raised by a colleague earlier. This is a Government that talks tough on crime, but in the 1996-99 period—when I was first in Parliament and the Minister was in Opposition—he had a lot to say about the approach of the National Government and what he would do when he was the Minister of Justice. This has been his chance, and he has not taken the opportunity to show the Government’s seriousness in respect of violent crime. That is the legacy he leaves, particularly in the context of the rise in the use of the drug P. Whether the police ever get on top of the problem or not, mark my words—we will see a severe escalation in criminal offending because of this dreaded curse. The drug P is everywhere, and although the Government has taken steps to address this scourge, in our view, those measures have not been adequate. Combined with its pussyfooting around with regard to the extension of the DNA technology that is the subject of this bill, it is unfortunate that we will witness worse to come.

That is an awful thing to have to say, because as parliamentarians we come in here hoping to make a difference, and it is a shame that when we have the opportunity to do that we are not bolder. It is necessary to strike a balance with civil liberties, but the levels of offending in society are such that that balance, in my view, must shift. There is a level of criminal violent offending that is absolutely ghastly and absolutely not acceptable. I suggest that we will be back here in 2 or 3 years’ time putting in tougher measures—certainly tougher than this Government is prepared to be.

Although this bill certainly updates the 1995 legislation, it does not go far enough. The Minister talks tough, but when it comes to the crunch, his actions are soft, and that is not good enough. The public of New Zealand will judge what sort of record he has in this matter. It certainly does not match the harking and the barking he did when he was in Opposition. He has had the chance to do something really bold and innovative, and he has lost that chance. None the less, National recognises the importance of the legislation as it is, and supports it.

I would ask the Minister again to seriously consider getting his officials after the Christmas break to consider the amendment proposed by my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp, and see whether we can convince the public of New Zealand that as parliamentarians we do care about their safety, we do care about their security, and we are prepared to treat them in the serious manner they deserve.

New Zealand First supports this bill. Obviously it was one of the three issues we promoted during the last election, and we are proud to be part of the Law and Order Committee. New Zealand First supported the amendments put up by Mr Ryall, because our belief was that those amendments would strengthen the bill where necessary. But when we come to a position of power, we will no doubt be looking at them again. Expense should not get in the way of good legislation in the fight against the heinous crimes that have been committed, and back-tracking on some of these criminals who are already in prison, but have yet to be convicted of a crime, will be available through the DNA tool.

Although DNA makes a strong contribution against crime, we should not forget to focus on crime prevention. I believe that this tool will prevent criminal activity. Criminals will now know that crime will not be so easy to get away with. New Zealand First would like to think that all criminals would see this bill as a tool to deter any future criminal activity, which I mentioned previously. As we have seen, DNA has become a vital crime-fighting tool around the world, and now it will become an important tool for our own police force.

The police submitters played a very important role in putting this bill together, but I would like to thank the staff who also put this legislation together, and who were very helpful to myself as the lone star for New Zealand First on that select committee. I would also like to thank other members across the political divide in helping to shape this very positive bill. New Zealand will be a lot safer now that this bill will be strengthened, and it will provide comfort for all New Zealanders in Aotearoa.

I just want to finish off—because I think everything has been said from New Zealand First—by saying that the public are crying out to feel safe on the streets and in their own homes. Criminals will think twice about their actions when they know that they will be caught.

I rise in this third reading to say that the ACT party is supporting the bill because at least it is a step in the right direction. But it is a pretty pathetic response by this Government to introduce a bill on 28 May 2002, and almost 1½ years later have a 25-page Supplementary Order Paper, which had to be tabled during the Committee stage, and then admit during the debate that the bill does not go as far as it maybe should because it does not do all the things that it could have done.

For example, the bill deals only with the DNA sampling for people who have a conviction that could result in 7 years in prison. Yet most New Zealanders would say: “Hang on, somebody who has committed an offence and ends up in jail should have his or her DNA put on a national DNA database.” That makes sense. So a person would know that if he or she ended up doing something bad and ended up in jail, his or her DNA would be taken in the same way as fingerprints are taken. Why is that provision not in this bill? The only reason it is not there is that the Government did not get its act together. Firstly, it did not get the bill drafted so that it could do that. Most other countries that have a DNA database do have all prisoners on it. In fact, in many countries now, everybody who has been arrested for a crime is put on the database. This Government obviously could not get its act together to do that.

Secondly, it said that if it did, the Institute of Environmental Science and Research, which does the database DNA technology testing, could not cope. Well, what a pathetic response that is. If a Government department that is meant to test DNA samples is not coping, the Government either boosts it up, gives it more funding and more staff, or contracts it out. In many countries they have found that their Government-run agency could not cope. They have private-public partnerships to do the forensic testing, and in some cases they have let it out to the private sector. Now, instead of having a 6 month, 9 month, or 2-year waiting list for crime samples to be tested, which we have in this country, they have a 2-week turn-round. If police officers listening to this debate knew that other countries have a 2-week turn-round of the DNA samples from criminals so they can get their evidence together to go to court to either get a conviction or have the conviction thrown out, or whatever—it all happens within a 2-week window of opportunity—they would think that it was absolutely wonderful. The Government members sitting over there on those benches can do this. It is within their power to actually do this sort of thing, and once again they have failed.

💬 Pita Paraone: Why won’t they?

Yes, why will they not do it? Perhaps Mr Benson-Pope could take a call and tell us why his Government is not doing it. It is up to you—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is bringing the Speaker into the debate again.

I was calling Mr Benson-Pope.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member should refer to them as the member, the Minister, or whoever it might be.

My apologies, Mr Chairperson. I did not want to bring you into the debate. The point is that if a Government is concerned about law and order, it has to put that concern higher up on its priority list. At the moment this Government has law and order down the bottom of the list. That is why the police are under-resourced, under-staffed, over-stressed, and find it so hard to do their job. That is why violent crime is on the rise and why resolution rates of crime are worse than they used to be, in spite of what the Minister has said. All the signs are that crime is getting worse in New Zealand under a Labour Government.

The sentencing laws are pathetic now. Even the public knows that. They ask why on earth the judges are dishing out such weak-kneed sentences, and the answer is because of the laws this Labour - Progressive - United Future - Green Party Government have passed. A law is to be passed that will take a step in the right direction. As we know, DNA has replaced fingerprinting as the modern method of forensic crime detection. That means that every single person who should have his or her fingerprints taken should have a DNA sample taken as well.

I know that during this debate there has been the whole issue about whether a person is innocent and all the rest of it, and the civil liberties debate, but the point is that if a person is innocent and his or her DNA is taken, it will prove that that person is innocent. The best way for a person to get out from suspicion of involvement in a crime is to give a DNA sample so that that person can be proven innocent. That is why it is such a good method of testing. It proves that people who are guilty are guilty, and that those who are innocent are innocent.

Members should cast their minds back to the situation where DNA testing found that Jules Mikus raped and murdered Teresa Cormack in 1987 in Napier. It was DNA testing that pointed to him as the guilty party. He is now safely behind bars. A crime has been solved and the parents of that little girl can now put the whole situation to rest. Every New Zealander thought that that was a great resolution for a terrible crime that had haunted each and every one of us. It was DNA testing that did that.

If one goes further, at the moment a person is awaiting trial for the murder of Maureen McKinnell in 1987 in Arrowtown. That person has been at large for 15 years and is suspected of her murder, through DNA testing. Members can just imagine that if the DNA of every single person who was ever involved in a violent crime, or was in jail at the present time, was on a national database, and was tested against all unsolved crimes, we would find that hundreds and hundreds of crimes would be solved. The only thing standing in our way to do that is that a Government has to make that its priority and make a commitment to it. At the moment DNA analysis is not given the high priority it deserves. Under this Government there is a backlog in the DNA testing laboratory. Crime samples have been waiting for over a year to be tested. Thousands of them are waiting to be tested. Then there is methamphetamine crime.

💬 Jill Pettis: Oh dear.

It is all very well for Jill Pettis to say “Oh dear.”, but her Government is responsible for that. Methamphetamine crime samples are waiting 2 years to be tested, and that is simply not good enough. Britain has prioritised DNA technology. It ring-fenced DNA, or funding for setting up a DNA database, and that seems a very sensible thing to do. Here the responsibility will be put on the police to set up a national database, and that means that police funding will be squeezed even more.

While I am talking about police funding, I put on record that when Labour came into power 2.03 percent of all Government spending went into policing. Now it is 1.94 percent, so the Labour Government has squeezed funding since it has been in power, and that is one reason the police are under stress. Britain has privatised DNA testing services. It now takes 2 months for the turn-round to happen. Earlier in the debate we heard the Minister say that the Government was going to fix that and it would take only until June 2004. For goodness’ sake, that is 8 months away. The Minister is saying that anybody who is suspected of a crime has to wait 8 months to be proven innocent, anybody who is guilty will have to wait 8 months to be sentenced, and that is simply not good enough.

In Britain, where there is a real emphasis on DNA technology, if there is evidence of a crime sample where a DNA test can be done, 80 percent of those crimes are now solved. If there is evidence of a person at a crime scene, 40 percent of those crimes are solved, because of DNA analysis. This Government has gone a step in the right direction, but it is certainly not far enough.

Jules Mikus is a name that would have remained obscure if it had not been for the power of DNA testing to resolve a heinous crime 15 years after it was committed and bring some closure to the family and friends of Teresa Cormack. Without DNA testing, that loser would have enjoyed the kinds of liberties that he denied his victims. David Dougherty was a name that was mud for 3½ years and would have been tarnished forever, had it not been for the power of DNA testing to clear that man’s name, and, just as important, assist the police to find the real offender. In the United States DNA evidence cleared Earl Washington of a brutal rape and murder after 10 years on death row and within 9 days of his execution.

This bill attempts to apply the powerful logic of DNA testing to an expanded number of offences and allows for an expanded range of sampling. United Future supports the intent of this bill, but, as I noted earlier, we would like to see those powers extended to an even wider range of offences. It is not as if much doubt remains about the evidential weight of DNA matching. Unlike a fingerprint that can be conclusively linked to a particular individual, DNA matching is based on the probability of samples being from the same person. However, with increasingly sophisticated testing technology, that probability is becoming more and more convincing in respect of passing judgment on the accused. Even a former President of the United States has faced up to the weight of probability as the odds that the genetic traces found on Miss Lewinsky’s dress were not those of Bill Clinton were estimated to be 1 in 7.87 million. The identity of the American Unabomber was assisted by the analysis of saliva left on a letter bomb he sent that did not explode.

Having said that, I point out that several mistakes in the identification of offenders have occurred in overseas jurisdictions, but they were all caused by errors in handling the samples, as subsequent testing showed. I might add that the committee viewed the operations of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd laboratory and was satisfied that the integrity of samples was maintained throughout the process, even with about 10,000 samples to process a year. It must be acknowledged that DNA matching is but one part of a prosecution case and is most useful when placed alongside other evidence such as fingerprints, crime-scene investigations, and eyewitness accounts.

We acknowledge the Government’s decision to expand the range of offences to which DNA sampling and matching applies. I am particularly pleased to know that the bill will compel some of the worst criminals still in custody, particularly those interned before 1996, to provide a sample. That would include scum like Paul Dally, Paul Bailey, and Peter Holdem, molesters and murderers of Karla Cardno, Kylie Smith, and Louisa Damodran respectively. Of course, in an ideal world, those guys would never get out, but when and if they do, at least the police will have the goods on them.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

I was discussing the value of DNA matching, and I included a number of individuals—molesters and murderers—who were caught through DNA processes, and some of whom were caught a substantial period after their offending. But we do ask, if DNA matching is of such value for serious offences, why it should not be applied to all those arrested for all crimes.

💬 Rodney Hide: And MPs.

My own suspicion is that that restriction should be placed on Rodney Hide, for a start! It should be put in place merely to limit the costs of processing samples, and I challenge the Minister in the chair, Phil Goff, to prove me wrong by committing more resources to this work in the next Budget. The emphasis here should be on the resolution of crime and, perhaps, even the prevention of crime, as the knowledge that a criminal’s DNA is on the database would serve to deter that criminal from reoffending.

💬 Rodney Hide: Hear, hear!

The member should hang on. That process is underlined by Jules Mikus’ interview with the police, in which the accused went from confidently protesting his innocence at one moment, to a wailing confession of guilt in the next, once he was confronted by the news that the DNA matched. But DNA matching is not aimed just at nailing the guilty. It can also speed up an investigation by helping to narrow down a list of suspects and reducing the possibility of following false leads. Using the technology for all crimes would send a message to criminals and victims. It would tell victims that the police were doing as much as they possibly could to catch perpetrators. It would send a message to even the most petty of criminals that any transgression of the law is unacceptable.

The Government’s justification of the application of DNA testing to burglary is that it is seen as a gateway crime to more serious offences. Invading a person’s property gives burglars the psychological licence to invade a person’s body through some form of violence. Most of us could not even consider entering other people’s property without invitation, and rifling through their possessions, but even for a first-time burglar, there is some preconditioning that allows him or her to undertake such a crime. That may be an offence as seemingly petty as tagging or shoplifting—something so petty that is punished so lightly that the offender knows he or she can live with the consequences. Each time those criminals commit another, more serious crime, they become more accustomed to the incremental nudge in sentencing. I say that we should treat all crime with the same severity of disapproval, and this bill misses an opportunity to do so by not imposing DNA sampling on all suspects. However, it is still a major step forward.

I am sickened when I see that so many Opposition members spend so much time criticising such a major step forward. It is not a perfect bill, but no bill is, and there is a huge opportunity further down the track for amendments that could tighten and expand it. We acknowledge the initiative of Phil Goff in putting it through, and I would also like to thank personally the other members, from all the different parties, of the Law and Order Committee. There was a great deal of consensus in tightening it up. I also thank the New Zealand Police Association, which certainly steered us in the right direction of expanding the number of crimes for which DNA sampling should be applied—which we got, thanks to National and New Zealand First, as well as United Future. I acknowledge that Labour had the opportunity to accommodate those interests, and that Phil Goff saw them through.

I also thank the Sensible Sentencing Trust for putting forward an incredibly heart-rending story. They brought victims of crime, some of whom had first-hand experience of a sense of closure directly related to DNA profiling of perpetrators of crimes that put the buggers away. That is what this bill is intended to do, and it will do that. I commend it to the House.

I have already indicated to the House that the Greens oppose the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill. Law and order debates in this Parliament always tell us a lot about the nature of Parliament, because inevitably they are an opportunity for the House to reach new lows in terms of hyperbole and political grandstanding. This debate has probably been restrained in that regard. Maybe it is due to the House being under urgency, and the desire of members to get out of the House early on Thursday or Friday, that the debate has been a bit more restrained than usual.

Nevertheless, we have heard the usual hyperbole and the usual grandstanding. We have heard members carrying on about scumbags and slime—using those words to describe people. I despair of our ability as a Parliament ever to deal seriously with the issues of law and order while we fail to realise that people who commit terrible acts are a peculiarly human problem.

💬 Hon Jim Sutton: Get a haircut.

That was a very witty rejoinder from Mr Sutton; it is good to see the member is on form. Such language is great for making us feel good and feel superior, but it adds nothing to the debate or to our ability to deal with serious offending. It reminds me of the debate on the “boy racer” bill, because the same words—scumbags and slime—were used to describe people who drive their cars fast and do wheelspins. One has to wonder about that. That bill was a perfect example of a bad law that was rushed through, using an appeal to emotion that did not justify the bill itself.

This bill does the same thing. Once again, we have seen the members of the Law and Order Committee, which is the same select committee that scrutinised the “boy racer” bill, say that it has heard the civil rights issues, but that they do not concern the committee and do not have any interest or merit, at all. The select committee said the same thing about the advice that the “boy racer” bill breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I have listened to the Minister, Mr Goff, talk about the fact that this bill is about preventing violent crime. The Greens were concerned about the bill as it was introduced, because it related to taking DNA samples from people suspected of burglary, but we thought that we could look at that and work through those issues. We are concerned about the way that the taking of DNA has been extended far beyond what we think is reasonable.

I heard the Hon Georgina te Heuheu say that this bill is about serious crime and that we are all against serious crime. Of course we are all against serious, violent crime, but this bill is not primarily about that. Marc Alexander, predictably, used the same tired old arguments about violent crime, and once again, as we so often do in these debates, we heard the names of Karla Cardno, David Dougherty, and the victims of Jules Mikus being used by politicians in an exploitative way to argue for legislation that has nothing to do with the kinds of the cases that those examples are about. This bill is not about those kinds of people. There are already powers to take DNA samples from people suspected of such horrendous and outrageous crimes. We approve of the idea that we should extend that in order to make it possible to take buccal samples. We support that.

But the things that were put into the bill by the select committee are not about serious, violent crime. They are not even primarily about violent crime. We would support this bill if it was about taking DNA samples from people who have committed, or are suspected of committing, violent crimes. This bill targets people who are suspected of a crime that carries a maximum of 7 years or more in prison. I had to look that up. I had to look at the kinds of crimes we are talking about. For example, members should look at the theft provisions. Anyone commits theft who, dishonestly and without any claim of right, takes any property with the intent of permanently depriving the owner of that property, including theft of animals and theft from a spouse.

The Crimes Act 1961, prior to the Crimes Amendment Act 1986, explicated what the term “animals” meant a little bit more, by referring to any mare, horse, gelding, ass, mule, bull, goat, cow, ox, heifer, ram, ewe or other sheep, or any boar, sow, or any pig, or the young of any such animal as aforesaid. That is what we are talking about—people who are suspected of those kinds of offences can have their DNA coercively taken by the police. And people in this Committee are telling us this bill is about preventing serious, violent crime.

💬 Rodney Hide: It always starts with stealing a pig.

Maybe that is correct; I do not know. It is really quite bizarre. I have been reading the bill, and clearly Mr Alexander has not bothered to do that.

Section 219(1) of the Crimes Act—until the Crimes Amendment Act of 2003 it was more explicit—provided, in terms of the animals that were capable of being stolen, that “All tame living creatures, whether tame by nature or wild by nature and tamed, are capable of being stolen; but tame pigeons are capable of being stolen so long only as they are in a dovecote or on their owner’s land.” So theft could not apply to pigeons that are flying in the air, but it may apply to pigeons in a dovecote. That is what we are talking about. So members, instead of just talking about generalisations and using these cases, which are actually already covered, should talk about that. In fact, the case of David Dougherty, which was brought up by Marc Alexander, is probably a very good argument of how the law, as it currently stands, is totally adequate to deal with that case, because it actually picked up that issue.

There is no doubt that DNA samples are a useful tool in the police tool kit, and, as I have said, the Greens do support this measure where it is about violent offences. But to talk about the offences that I have just read from the Act is bizarre. Members really need to look at what the bill actually does, instead of what they think they want it to do. They should deal with the actual bill that, it seems, we are about to pass into law. The Greens oppose this bill.