Goff Phil: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Goff Phil: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9468] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 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.