Garrett David: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Garrett David: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7500] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill but with considerable reservations. I am glad to see the Green Party co-leader is sitting down because I think I will probably cause her some shock later in my speech. 
The ACT Party as everyone knows proclaims itself proudly to be the party of freedom. I notice Kelvin Davis quoted one of our founding principles that one must take the consequences of one’s actions. That is typical of the thoughtful speeches made by that member that I have heard in the short time I have been in Parliament. There are divisions in our party because of our founding doctrine of freedom—freedom of the individual. Others in our party say that we should take a DNA sample from everyone. Everyone who is a decent citizen should volunteer and if they do not a sample should just be taken. No one who is not criminally minded has anything to fear. That is one argument and it has much to commend it. Others in our party say this is yet another unwarranted intrusion by the State especially when we are talking about persons who have not even been charged much less convicted. That causes me concern personally and it causes concern to many of our members. 
I am personally in that uncomfortable place of straddling the fence on this one but we cannot do that in this House. We have to make a call and collectively ACT has made a call to support the bill. The Green Party speaker talked about systemic racism in the police. I personally do not believe that is the case. However it is undoubtedly true sadly that the offence that the Americans call “driving while black” which here is “driving while brown” is indeed a reason in the absence of anything else for the police to pull Maori people over. Again some will say that that is justified because Maori are overrepresented in the criminal population. That is simply a fact whatever the reason for it. But to say that our police are completely colour-blind would be to deny reality. 
The other day I was reviewing the case in Whakatane where four policemen over an extended period pepper sprayed a Maori man who was helpless in a cell. They were charged and acquitted by a jury which I found astounding having looked at the video tapes of what occurred. So to say that the police are entirely free of racist attitudes would be wrong and I will not stand here and say that. 
This is not an easy speech to make because it is a very difficult question. As Kelvin Davis has touched on I too share concerns about samples being taken where someone is intended to be charged but no charge ever follows. I have concerns and have had concerns. I am old enough as probably now only a minority of members are to remember the Arthur Alan Thomas case. I have read the 1981 royal commission report on the Thomas case and it is a shocking read. I am prepared to bet that nobody else in this House has read it but I can tell members that from that day on blind trust in the police was misplaced. So I share Kelvin Davis’ concern and I share Metiria Turei’s concern in that regard. 
But the argument is finely balanced. We have become a much more violent society than we once were; there is no doubt of that. To anyone who tends to argue otherwise whether he or she wants to split hairs about domestic violence or whatever I say that that is simply a fact. At this point I will depart from the Greens who use the usual hyperbole when talking about anything to do with law and order on the issue of grievous assaults when taking samples. Well I have just assaulted my colleague Rahui Katene when I touched her. I remember studying torts 20 years ago. I got a D in the mid-sessional exam but got an A in the final exam because I swotted. I can remember the exact phrase “Even the slightest touching is an assault”. So I have just assaulted Rahui Katene—although I am cheating because she gave me her consent first. To say that taking a sample is a grievous assault is silly; it is just silly. The worst that could possibly happen to people who refuse to give a sample would be to have their head held and a swab stuck in their mouth. That cannot be called a grievous assault or even a serious assault. 
This is a finely balanced exercise. I share the concerns of other speakers about the intrusions—the human rights concerns—and I do not have blind faith in the police. However as I said at the beginning of my speech sitting on the fence in this House is not what we are sent here to do. The ACT Party with some reservation will support this bill. Thank you.