Alexander Marc: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Alexander Marc: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9452] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support the second reading of this bill. We support the bill because it expands the range of offences for which DNA samples can be collected as well as expanding the methods by which those samples may be collected beyond those listed in the Criminal Investigations (Blood Samples) Act. That Act has been superseded not only in advances in technology but also by an increasing recognition of the power of DNA profiling to apprehend our most dangerous criminals. The acceptance of buccal swabs as reliable samples for the purposes of DNA profiling means that the whole process of matching crime-scene evidence with the offender is now that much easier. Samples from inside the mouth are quicker to administer much less invasive and less susceptible to claims that they conflict with religious sensitivities if that matters to people and belonephobia which is the fear of needles. By expanding the ambit of the Act from blood samples to bodily samples the bill also provides some future-proofing in the likely eventuality that further advances will be made in the sampling and testing of DNA material. 
The bill also expands the range of crimes to which these crime-fighting tools will be applied. In the case of burglary the current law enables samples to be collected and entered on to the databank only from those convicted of burglary and entering with intent for the purposes of matching with more serious crimes. This meant that the Act already recognised the gateway effect of burglary in terms of its relationship with sexual and violent crime but did not allow police to collect from burglary suspects evidential samples that might help to convict them of other crimes associated with burglary. The inclusion of burglary suspects in the regime proposed by this bill remedies the situation and also means that the DNA sampling and matching regime now treats burglary as a serious offence in itself and rightly so. Although a large number of burglars leave at a scene DNA material that can be applied to profiles in the databank if the match cannot be used as a basis for applying a suspect compulsion order for a burglary then yet another offending thug may avoid conviction. 
In its wisdom the Law and Order Committee saw fit to add a number of sexual and violent offences to the sampling regime and here I think there was a great deal of unanimity amongst not only United Future New Zealand First and National but also Labour. I congratulate the process on showing that unanimity. This is very much in keeping with the objectives of the original Act to ensure that it covers serious violent and indictable offences where DNA is likely to be left at the crime scene. The committee recommended that offences that endanger human life and all of those punishable by a sentence of at least 7 years be included. We also recommended that as the bill included attempted crimes conspiracy to commit a serious offence should also be included. If police are able to apprehend an offender before a crime is actually committed but is clearly about to occur then this hardly makes for front-page news yet in this case at least one person if not a number of people would be saved the pain of becoming yet another victim. If we want to help the police to apprehend criminals before they ruin the lives of others then we need to give them all the available tools to do so. The only difference between a crime committed and a crime contemplated is success and to this extent we are quite happy to encourage failure. 
Whilst United Future agrees with the select committee recommendations that seek to extend the range of relevant offences that are able to utilise DNA testing we are strongly of the view that we should not stop there. We concur with the submission of the Police Association and also of the Sensible Sentencing Trust that DNA samples should be obtained from all offenders on arrest to create an even more potent crime-fighting tool. But Government members on the committee rejected that on the basis that it would necessitate a major rewrite of the law and therefore was outside the scope of the bill. This was the advice of the Office of the Clerk and I acknowledge the difficulties that such a sizable amendment would present. The simple truth is that we did not want to wait another 2 years for a re-write to come through and allow another range of scumbags to get through in the process at the moment. 
We would like to revisit this law down the track with an amendment to expand the legislation even further. The main reason adopted by the Government we think was that by including all suspects in the testing regime we would be unnecessarily infringing on their personal liberty simply on the basis of those suspicions. The Government used the same rationale to reject the submission of the Police Association that offences punishable by a maximum of 3 years in prison be included—something that I thought would have at least represented a compromise position. As an aside I note that most of the remaining violent offences that would fall into this category have since been included in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper and we are grateful for that. 
 The argument that all crimes should not be included due to the protection of personal liberty is made by the very same people who also argue quite rightly that the use of buccal techniques should open up the number of offences for which DNA samples can be obtained because it is less invasive and less intrusive on personal liberties. How is it any more a breach of personal liberties than the current requirement of obtaining fingerprints for all arrests? That answer has never been given. As an example I cannot understand why peeping and peering are not included in this bill. The reason given is that it is subject to a maximum sentence of a $500 fine upon conviction and despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary from the police and criminal profilers it is also claimed that peeping and peering is not the gateway to more serious offending that it is claimed to be. Of those in prison for violent and sexual offences from 1995 to 1998 only 2 percent had previous convictions for peeping compared with the 45 percent of violent offenders and 25 of percent sexual offenders who had convictions for burglaries. But I say that even 2 percent is good enough if we can use DNA sampling to stop one peeping Tom from becoming a serial rapist. How do we exclude them from people who are simply casing the joint so they can commit a robbery? 
There is another good argument as to why peeping should be included in the bill. The police know that this kind of offending leads to more dangerous sex crimes so they will be tempted to book peeping Toms for observing with intent to commit a burglary so that they can be sure that their slimy genetic material is on file. If we do not include more crimes in this regime then we are sending the message to the victims of those crimes that the resolution of those offences is not a priority for the Government or the police and that is not fair on the police who want to solve those crimes and make these people feel safe again. I have a potential solution. If the Government will not lower the bar on the types of crimes that should apply to this bill then we could always increase the sentences for those crimes to 7 years’ prison and beyond. Another reason United Future would like to see this technique applied to other offenders is the potential for deterrence that it creates. By compelling those currently incarcerated to submit to a DNA sample this bill may alter the rate of recidivism of those offenders when they leave prison. Knowing that the law enforcement authorities have their DNA profile on file should make any logical criminal reluctant to reoffend—criminals would know that a powerful evidentiary tool is readily available to be used against them. 
In addition the Law and Order Committee recommended that additional information be included on the sample compulsion notice given to offenders advising them of the nature of the offence and what the sample will be used for. This should be a salutatory reminder of the forces stacked against the criminals should they lapse again so why not extend it to all serious crime and create an even more wide-ranging deterrent effect? United Future supports this legislation because it leads down the right track but it needs to go much further and include the widest possible range of offences if it is to be ultimately effective in nipping aspiring criminals and deviants in the bud and assisting the police in resolving crimes. Like the member from ACT who spoke before we also have concerns that youth crime is subject to a different regime. Catching a criminal and the sentencing that accrues from that should not be dependent upon the age of the criminal. It should be directly in proportion to the crime committed and the offence that that crime imposes upon victims and society. We heartily recommend this bill because it is a very good step forward. We look forward to amendments further down the track to expand and entrench this legislation.