Borrows Chester: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Borrows Chester: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7071] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand in support of the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill. I commend the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee and the goodwill that was exchanged across the table. We all learnt a heck of a lot more about DNA than we realised there was for us to learn in such a short space of time. I also commend the way the matter was debated around the table. I think it is important to note that what lies behind this is safety. The reason why the National Party introduced into its policy that we would remove a sample of DNA from everybody arrested for an imprisonable offence was safety. Those offenders who go on to commit crimes especially heinous crimes—the rapes murders home invasions and the serious assaults—against the person generally started off their offending at low-level Summary Offences Act offences. If we were in a position to identify their DNA very early in the piece by the time they got down the track to committing those more serious crimes for instance we would have them on DNA left at the scene of the crime. 
I think we have to say not to anyone in particular that generally it is about the victims stupid. So often these days we can get carried along on a wave that is looking at rights and freedoms without ever caring about or paying any cognisance at all of the responsibilities of living in a civilised society. Although we enjoy rights and freedoms in this society we have to acknowledge that they come with a responsibility. The first responsibility of a Government is to protect the public. There has been strong stringent judicial oversight of the DNA-securing process in the past. That is because the technology used in the past always required a blood sample to be taken. That is why it was seen as such an intrusion into somebody’s person and there needed to be a judicial warrant to do that. 
Under this legislation the DNA swab is taken by the alleged offender by taking a Q-tips cotton swab and putting it inside his or her cheek taking it out and handing it to the waiting police officer. No one has the sample taken by somebody else and no one is held down to have the sample taken by force. In actual fact it is taken by the alleged offenders themselves with their own cheek swab—it is as intrusive as that. So there is no need for judicial oversight in respect of DNA swabs taken in that way as there has been before. 
Another thing we need to bear in mind is that DNA exculpates as well as implicates. The previous speaker the Hon Clayton Cosgrove mentioned David Dougherty and how he was exculpated for a rape he had been convicted for. There are numerous other suspects who are removed from an inquiry with the use of DNA. We have to bear that in mind and that is a very strong point. 
I want to pick up on some of the points made by some of the other speakers. A previous speaker Carmel Sepuloni said that a large number of those arrested are not charged but that is not true. I suggest that probably less than 1 percent of those who are arrested are never charged. They go in front of a court charges may be withdrawn at a later time and in that situation if all the charges are withdrawn the DNA sample would also be disposed of. That is true but it would be disposed of before the identifying stage. It would not be taken and sent away then identified profiled logged on a database and then there is not a conviction or the charges are withdrawn. There is very little administrative cost in holding that sample until the conviction is entered. 
Another point contained within the legislation is that the DNA sample is activated by charging. That means that the DNA sample of somebody who was arrested and taken before the court and later diverted after a guilty plea for instance would be retained. The sample is kept on charging and that is a significant thing to remember. There is not a lot of administrative cost in doing what we are doing up until the point of conviction in any event because it is only after that that the DNA is profiled. 
The previous speaker Jacinda Ardern said that DNA was not the modern fingerprint because it has the ability to give a lot more information than for instance a fingerprint can; it does more than just identify the person and that is correct. But I also pick up on the point that Moana Mackey made: although there are several hundred identifiers with any sample of DNA under this profiling only about 16 points are identified and they are not points that go to hereditary identifiers and those sorts of identifiers. 
Moana Mackey 
: How do you know? 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: Because that was the evidence that we heard before the select committee. 
It is also important to note that yes as Moana Mackey said DNA can be manufactured. However in all likelihood and I am sure she would agree although it is something that could be done—and it is always something that we cannot discount because a scientist would never discount anything—the chances of that happening are very unlikely. If DNA is going to be placed within a crime scene it is probably going to be somebody else’s bodily sample; semen blood saliva or some other DNA-carrying substance would be left at the scene rather than manufactured DNA. 
It is a cliché to go on talking about tools and tool boxes. DNA and recovering DNA at this level means that there will be fewer victims created in the future. Offenders who would go on to commit serious offences in the future will be identified a lot earlier because DNA will be held from the Summary Offences Act offences they commit at a very very early stage in their criminal offending. Over this year the Government has very proudly brought before this Parliament a number of measures that impact severely on victims for the better. This legislation is one of them. It is going to save more victims than probably any other single piece of legislation that we have seen before this Parliament in a very long time.