Borrows Chester: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Borrows Chester: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7471] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 Fair enough! It was interesting to hear the comments from the previous speaker Moana Mackey. She will recall from her time spent sitting on the Justice and Electoral Committee and hearing from the officials in respect of the recovery of DNA samples and the processing of them that the costs were given to the committee. She will recall that they had been calculated on the basis of an expectation that the numbers coming through the system would build up over time of the requirement to maintain the chain of evidence and of the costs of collating and storing the information. Those costs were given. She also made a comment about the ability to challenge the charge and the issue of the recovery of the DNA or the sample that had been given. Of course the samples will not be profiled until a conviction has been entered. So it is not the case that every sample that is taken will move through the process. 
But it is important not to lose sight of one particular thing which is that of all the bills that have been passed through the House in recent years and that are anticipated to be passed in the near future this Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill is the one that will save more victims than anything else has saved or will save. This legislation will identify offenders very very early in the piece based on their early offending. The offences contained in the schedule are a number of precursor offences. We know that offending by way of home invasions and sexual offences—offences against the person—can be predicted by the sort of behaviour that is reflected in the offences that are listed in this bill. In the same way we know that those people who go on to commit tragic offences against the person whom we particularly want to be able to identify by DNA evidence—for instance offenders like the “Parnell Panther”—start off their offending at a very low level with offences against what we now call the Summary Offences Act. So having their DNA on record very early in the piece would identify them as soon as they left traceable bodily evidence at the scene of a crime or on a victim. They would be able to be caught a lot earlier than they are caught at present. They would not be able to go on to commit a hundred more home invasions or rapes before they were caught. 
I go back to the point I made just a few seconds ago that this legislation has the ability to save more victims than any other legislation has. That is not a reason to give carte blanche to any infringement of people’s rights that the State may want to impose but we have to look at what we are doing here. The ability to obtain a DNA sample through the use of a cheek swab is fairly simple and straightforward. There are issues raised by the process of maintaining the chain of evidence and doing a test on that sample because the DNA test is much more extreme and requires more resources than say testing a blood sample. At the same time the Institute of Environmental Science and Research specialists have been doing that with blood alcohol samples for years and years. Their processes along the chain of evidence are simple and very streamlined. There is no reason why that will not apply here. 
The evidence given at the select committee hearing by officials from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research and from the Ministry of Justice as to funding and resources was very plain. I am sure that given her understanding of what is involved here the previous speaker Moana Mackey will know very well that there is no risk there. 
Moana Mackey 
: I just want a guarantee from the Minister. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: She calls upon the Minister so the Minister in the chair the Hon Nathan Guy can get to his feet and tell her exactly what she has already heard within the select committee. No doubt he is able to do that. However Moana Mackey made her decision early in the piece that she was going to support this legislation because of what it will do. I commend her for that. I do not see any point in trampling over ground that she already knows very well.