Tanczos Nandor: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9475] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 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. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: 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. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: 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.