Katene Rahui: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Katene Rahui: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7492] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Four years ago the Maori Party was approached about the Genographic Project a huge project in which DNA samples were to be extracted from 100000 indigenous volunteers. That is right—the blood and genetic codes of indigenous peoples were to be suddenly available in the global DNA bank. Perhaps it could be used to construct what a Chicago museum has apparently labelled as the perfect human specimen: Maori of course. But the risk that the unique DNA of indigenous peoples might be used for other less honourable means was always there. At the time we felt duty-bound by both legal codes and ethical standards to draw attention to the proposed DNA research stipulating that informed consent and ethical approval should be obtained before any such research could proceed. We did so on the basis of our firm belief that whakapapa is a taonga tuku iho to be protected no matter what happens. 
We rolled on 2 years from the Genographic Project and this time we were dealing with a police practice note updated in 2007 and published in the police journal  
Ten-One 
. To be fair the practice note made it clear that children under the age of 10 years should be fingerprinted only for the purpose of eliminating them from a police inquiry and that children aged 10 to 13 years could not be fingerprinted without the written approval of the Youth Aid section of the police. But the note also encouraged members of the New Zealand Police to promote the fact that it was in the best interests of children and young persons to voluntarily agree to be fingerprinted. In reality voluntarily given fingerprints provide the police with a tool that will greatly increase the likelihood of those children and young persons being identified in future police investigations. 
This Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill is a case of third time lucky for some people. The bill introduces the ability to take DNA from any person including a young person whom the police intend to charge with any imprisonable offence. In 2011 this will be widened to any person or young person whom the police intend to charge with a “relevant offence’ as defined in the legislation. Ostensibly the bill has a straightforward goal: to assist with the conviction of people who are arrested for an imprisonable offence. But is it really as simple as that? In reality many low-level offences carry a penalty of short-term imprisonment as a maximum sentence so it turns out that a very large pool of offenders could be required to undergo DNA testing. As we have become aware the criteria will become broader in the future capturing a wider group of suspects. Over time for example low-level and youth offenders those arrested but not convicted or even those who are merely suspected of offending might all fall prey to this scheme. 
The Maori Party has always believed that if DNA tests have to be employed as a means of identifying offenders a more stringent test could be found to better target high-end offenders and that some other approaches should be adopted for the lower-end offenders. YouthLaw Tino Rangatiratanga Taitamariki considered that the offence thresholds should be targeted at the more serious end of the criminal offending scale as is currently the case and should not be opened up to encapsulate the range of offences that Part 2 intends. This was also the view of the Privacy Commissioner who was greatly concerned that Part 2 would bring all imprisonable offences whether serious or trivial within the ambit of the DNA collection regime. This would greatly increase the number of samples collected. The commissioner’s view is that the law enforcement benefit of such a sweeping change would be outweighed by costs to privacy public trust and the smooth functioning of the programme. As a consequence the commissioner recommends that Part 2 should be removed from the bill. 
There are simply too many unknowns about and too much variability in the potential use and collection of DNA. For a start there are a host of ethical and human rights concerns particularly to do with the existing police bias against and over-scrutiny of the Maori population including the use of ethnic profiling. Human rights concerns have been raised in the United Kingdom that a DNA database breaches international human rights laws and standards. In fact in these days when Parliament has been considering the value that referenda bring it may be useful to consider the call in the United Kingdom for a citizens’ inquiry sponsored by the Human Genetics Commission which is a Government advisory body. That inquiry suggested that people who are deemed to be innocent should have their details deleted from the National DNA Database. Britain has the largest DNA database in the world including an estimated 100000 profiles of children. The commission found widespread public distrust of this system which collects and keeps genetic material from anyone who is arrested even if that person is not convicted of a crime. If anyone was ever wondering what was meant by ethnic profiling he or she might start by considering the British experience. More than three in four young black men in the United Kingdom experience having their DNA included on the database but only 22 percent of young white men do. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee had the benefit of guidance from Michael Rowe. 
Debate interrupted.