Mapp Wayne: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9457] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I will be moving an amendment which is more in the nature of a statement of intent. I am doing it because I believe the purpose of this bill is fundamentally too limited. It is fundamentally too modest and that speaks enormously of the deficiency or the paucity of imagination of the Government. The Government has simply not taken on board that a DNA sample is the modern equivalent of a fingerprint so it has produced a relatively complex bill built on the 1995 legislation. It has then provided a 23-page Supplementary Order Paper. 
I said in my second reading speech and elsewhere that DNA is the modern fingerprint. No one has any objections on civil liberties grounds to requiring persons who are arrested to give fingerprints. That is just seen as a normal and proper thing to happen. It is done for the purposes of identification so that the people who are known risks are entered on a criminal database not only in the case of a particular offence they have committed but also for checking purposes with regard to any future offences. Basically there is no other purpose for the taking of fingerprints. It is to provide proof in certain circumstances of a particular offence but also to be entered on a database. I ask the Minister in the chair Phil Goff this basic question: why does the Government not take the leap of imagination that would be required to think forward and to understand that we are no longer in 1995 when blood samples had to be taken for DNA—and I can understand the concerns around that—and that the technology has moved on so that the taking of a sample is no longer intrusive? It is now no more intrusive than taking a fingerprint. 
On principle I will be moving an amendment that states that the Act should apply to all offences that could carry a penalty of imprisonment. I have limited it to that. It could actually be wider but I understand the Government’s and other parties’ concerns about widening it. As a matter of principle surely we should be able to say that offenders who commit offences that carry a term of imprisonment—even if that penalty is not imposed—should be required to give a DNA sample both in relation to the particular offence for issues of proof in the trial and to the database generally. I have put forward as a matter of principle an amendment that would establish that. Essentially I ask the Government to look at our criminal law in a forward-thinking way and to appreciate that we are no longer locked into the past. The technology has evolved DNA is the modern fingerprint and the law ought to reflect that. 
In my speech in the second reading debate I made a great deal about the failure of the Government to take the essential critical steps that would get on top of crime. Now is the opportunity for the Government to demonstrate that it is serious about crime and to change its whole way of thinking in relation to crime detection so that this kind of technique could be used for a much broader purpose. I notice the Minister in the chair the Hon Phil Goff is consulting the officials. I would like him to take a call and say what is wrong if anything with the proposition that I have made. I appreciate that I have not provided a 23-page Supplementary Order Paper. He may feel that that sort of Supplementary Order Paper would be required for that kind of change. Nevertheless as a matter of principle the Minister may take on board that kind of change. 
This is an important point because I want Government members even if they pass this bill into law today which they undoubtedly will— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: With the member’s support. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Yes we will support it. I want Government members to say that they do need to take a more back-to-basics back-to-first-principles approach to this measure and to look at what they are doing. I want them to say that maybe there needs to be some legislation—perhaps called the “DNA Samples Bill 2004”—that would require all people charged with an offence that carries a term of imprisonment to provide a DNA sample irrespective of whether the offence is under the Crimes Act the Transport Act the Misuse of Drugs Act or a whole host of other legislation. The general principle I am talking about is crimes the seriousness of which can be measured according to whether they carry a term of imprisonment. 
I do not suggest going quite as far as one could. One could simply substitute “DNA” for “fingerprints”. In that case a DNA sample would be taken for all offences many of which do not carry terms of imprisonment. That would be one approach. But the approach that I suggest which would essentially lead to a new bill and would treat this legislation as merely an interim or a holding measure would make a real difference. It would be a meaningful change to the law that would give a real tool to the police and the law enforcement authorities of this nation. I hope the Minister does take a call. I have set out what I think is a sound case in principle for a change that would make a genuine difference to our criminal law. My proposal would enable the officials to work over the summer to produce legislation that does not have to be 100 pages long and would establish some basic rules that would give a new way of detecting offending. 
I take the Government at its word in some respects. When it says it is serious about crime I would like to think on behalf of all New Zealanders that it is. This would be one way the Government could actually— 
Rodney Hide 
: Why would you believe it on that? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: This would be one way the Government could demonstrate that. It could demonstrate it by way of action as opposed to words. As I said in my speech in the second reading debate we have seen big increases in crime and particularly in violent crime. I want the Government to say that it understands it has not done enough in the last 4 years that the Sentencing Act ended up becoming something of a damp squib that the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill should be an interim measure only and that a meaningful measure is required. I suggest to the Minister that if he introduces such legislation to the House in 2004 he would get consent from the Opposition parties. He would get consent from New Zealand First from the ACT party and from the United Future party. There was one party only that I did not mention which was the Green Party. All other parties in this Parliament are serious about crime and are willing to cast their vote for a proper measure that recognises that changes in technology enable the sorts of measures that are necessary to get on top of crime. So I say to the Minister that when we on the Opposition side of the Chamber ask for a considered fresh approach to crime we are not doing it just for the purposes of filibustering but are suggesting it as a serious measure. 
I understand that the Minister is likely to vote against the amendment. That is why I have suggested that he take the idea to the officials and produce new legislation—a new bill. I ask that he give the select committee a serious opportunity to ask whether the world is different from the way it was in 1995. Have things changed since 1998? Is this new technology moving on? Is it time to take a fresh approach and say that yes the technology has matured? 
Our understanding is clear. DNA is the new fingerprint. Let us have that form of database rather than one that rests on a technology that is now well over a century old: that of taking fingerprints. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to follow my colleague Dr Mapp because I do want to commend his amendment to the Minister in the chair the Hon Phil Goff. I would like the Minister to take a call. He knows that we support this bill. It makes absolute sense to support the bill no matter that criticism has been levelled at the Minister for the length of time that he has taken to bring it to the House. However I would have hoped that the 4-year delay in the context of the advances that have been made in technology and of the huge upward sweep of serious crime in this country in recent years might have influenced him to seriously consider extending the provisions of this bill. 
I indicated in my second reading speech that although there is a view that DNA testing swabs should be applied to all people who are arrested like my colleague I certainly do not go as far as that. There is the underlying principle of balancing the rights of the individual against the measures we take to protect the security and safety of law-abiding citizens. But some consideration by the Minister to applying this technology to those arrested on charges that are punishable by a term of imprisonment I do not think goes too far in the current environment. No doubt the Minister will take a call and explain why he possibly will not support the amendment proposed by my colleague. However Dr Mapp will have the support I have no doubt of all parties in this House other than the Greens. The Greens obviously want the balance to be so weighted that they would rather see law-abiding citizens at the mercy of heinous offenders than be serious about addressing crime in this country. So as I say my colleague’s proposed amendment is a good one. 
I would go further than Dr Mapp and suggest to the Minister that perhaps he would consider—maybe even over the next 12 hours if he will not do so now—whether it is possible to have that amendment included in the bill so that we can deal with it now. We would not then have to come back and tinker with the legislation after Christmas or have a new bill after Christmas as my colleague says. Perhaps we are able to deal with the amendment now because the speeches made by my colleagues on the Opposition side of the House are clearly in favour of an extension to the use of this technology and there may be a way that it can be done before the end of the Committee stage. 
Such a change is clearly supported by the police who actually suggested that the Law and Order Committee go further than it did. They are at the forefront of fighting crime. They are the people in whom we vest the safety of New Zealanders. The police are the people who are given the burdensome task the huge task of fighting rising levels of serious crime with unfortunately limited tools in their tool kit. Although they are no doubt very pleased that this legislation will now see its way through the Committee they clearly consider that their task would be far better enhanced and made a lot easier if they were given more tools.