Perry Edwin: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Perry Edwin: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9448] 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to support the second reading and to fully support the bill—unlike the Prostitution Reform Bill that New Zealand First vigorously opposed. Let us get back to this very good bill. Its aim is to amend the Criminal Investigations (Blood Samples) Act by extending the powers of the police to firstly allow DNA samples to be collected by mouth swab; secondly allow DNA samples to be taken from persons suspected of committing burglary or entering with intent; thirdly provide for compulsory DNA testing of inmates detained under a sentence of imprisonment who are in custody for a relevant offence for which they were convicted prior to the commencement of the Act; fourthly repeal the current requirement for a compulsion order hearing before a judge prior to a databank compulsion sample being taken from a person convicted of a relevant offence; fifthly extend the range of material that may be used as a basis to compel a suspect to provide a DNA sample; and sixthly simplify and modify procedures or repeal significant requirements to reduce costs improve efficiency or ease administration. 
New Zealand First upholds the principles underpinning this bill—that it is the basic right of all New Zealanders to live in a safe society that the rights of victims are paramount and that the offender’s rights are subject to the rights of both the victim and the State. Our 2002 manifesto in the last election  
Keeping New Zealand First 
 clearly outlines our plan for law and order issues including our desire to legislate to have all criminals DNA tested and records stored and to introduce a requirement that every person arrested irrespective of the seriousness or the nature of the crime contribute a sample to the DNA databank. That would occur at the same time and in the same manner that applies at present for the fingerprinting of all those arrested and would form an electronic record of detainees as opposed to a database of fingerprints. Mouth swabs would generally be used as opposed to blood samples. 
Forensic DNA profiling has been the most remarkable breakthrough in finding the perpetrators of horrendous crimes—crimes that otherwise would be impossible to solve. Here we have on our doorstep a way of bringing to account those people who commit heinous crimes against our innocents. There should be no hesitation whatsoever that this bill should be processed through the House and given the royal assent to become the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Act. 
However I have some serious reservations that the limited respective provisions of this bill mean that samples cannot be obtained compulsorily from all those who have committed relevant offences. That was a concern to a number of members on the Justice and Electoral Committee. The law should apply equally to those currently alive who have already demonstrated that they have a potential to commit a serious crime. An inmate who has done his or her time in prison but is fortunate to have been released a few days before the commencement of the Criminal Investigations (Blood Samples) Act which came into force on 12 August 1996 should not be given any special privileges. We are looking at legislation of at least a decade ago and justice should not be kind with time. Time and time again we have seen repeat offenders and although we have been unable to DNA test absolutely everybody in this country this bill will enable us to target a group that has a high probability of committing serious crime and it will therefore aid the police in their investigations which will save an enormous amount of time resources and manpower. 
The bill in its present form seems to be generous in that it has widened the provisions relating to the taking of samples from persons convicted of offences to also include those convicted of attempts to commit offences. That however is useless if it is not pursuant to a databank compulsion notice. The bill should recognise that it would be both in the interests of victims and in the public interest if the police were unfettered in their duties of enforcing the law by being able to issue databank compulsion notices as legislation allows if they are authorised to do so by the Commissioner of Police. 
The bill has provision for those receiving databank compulsion notices to request a hearing to have an opinion by a judge on three grounds: the offence is not a relevant offence the conviction is not one to which the bill applies or for which conviction has been quashed and the taking of bodily samples by all three methods will cause serious harm to a person’s health. There are also other specified matters relating to service of all the content of the notice. These grounds should also be applied to the taking of mouth swabs. The Police Association places a high emphasis on crime-scene training including preserving crime-scene sites and emphasising to crime-scene staff the risk of the contamination which has been a problem in past investigations. If police are able to breathalyse drivers randomly for alcohol there is no reason why they should not also be able to take mouth samples. 
It concerns me that the bill could be self-defeating when its own provisions can contradict the very reason for having the bill in the first place. I appreciate that human rights and quality assurance provisions should be incorporated into legislation but if it is in the public’s interest for a person to be issued a databank compulsion notice and the DNA is sampled only in extreme and glaring examples why should the rights of that person prevail? It is all very well to ask the consent of the person providing the sample whether he or she minds whether a registered nurse a medical technologist or a phlebotomist takes the sample. Instead we should specify who is the best to take the sample at a given time and specify that there are sufficient quality controls in place to ensure the process is 100 percent error-free. I would hate to see legislative technicalities political correctness or lawyers’ self-interest standing in the way of public interest and safety. 
There was a time when people thought it was a breach of human rights if they were stopped randomly for breath testing. Science and legislation made that possible and as a result thousands of lives have been saved on our roads. We cannot back the sum statistically because we have no way of knowing how many people would have died if those sorts of measures had not been put in place. This bill will let criminals know that if they commit crimes they will be caught. They can run but they cannot hide. 
It will also prevent innocent people like David Dougherty from being wrongly convicted. He spent many years needlessly behind bars whilst the true perpetrator Nicholas Reekie carried on with his deviant acts of sexual violence against children women and the elderly. It will also save millions in compensation claims and lengthy legal hearings. Teresa Cormack’s murderer thought he would not have to pay the price for his criminal and senseless act which cost a sweet young girl’s life and left her family forever grieving. At least now they can find a small sense of peace in the knowledge that this person is behind bars at last. 
I would like to think that this legislation would not just bring people to justice but that it would prevent heinous crimes from occurring in the first place. How many murderers and rapists start off with assault petty thieving and that type of deviant behaviour? The public are crying out to feel safe on the streets and in their own homes. People will think twice about their actions when they know they will be caught. 
I commend the Law and Order Committee on its cooperation across the political divide in upholding the need for the police to be given sufficient power and resources to bring former and current criminals to justice. I conclude by fully endorsing the bill and by encouraging all those deliberating on it to put public interest and safety at the forefront of their consideration. New Zealand First supports this bill.