Goff Phil: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Goff Phil: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9459] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I rise to reply briefly to the points raised by members. Dr Mapp seemed to suggest I should have changed this legislation 4 years ago. Perhaps I could remind him that at the time I became the Minister the legislation was not yet 4 years old. It was a new bill. It was passed by that member’s Government and came into effect in 1996. I think he was even a member of the select committee that considered the bill. I recall sitting on that committee and the then National Government was adamant that the bill should not be extended to cover even burglary. I had a different view of that because in 1996 burglary was running at a rate of 90000 reported offences a year—90000. I knew and the select committee heard evidence that burglary is a precursor offence to more serious offending. There is a clear link between burglary and serious sexual and violent crimes. That is why very soon after becoming Minister I put the policy process in train to extend the legislation to cover burglary. 
This Government has done an extraordinary job in getting burglaries down from 90000 a year to 60000. That is an extraordinary drop in offending rates and we want to make further progress still in that area. Nevertheless I believe that burglary should be an offence for which there can be compulsion orders for DNA sampling and that is why I brought this bill in. I listened carefully to the submissions on the bill that were made to the select committee and I agreed to take it even further so that all offences imprisonable by 7 years or more would be covered. All serious offences are now covered plus some less serious offences. The New Zealand Police Association put forward three precursor offences to burglary so we have put those in as well. 
Clearly in legislation of this nature given the time and the money expended not only in taking DNA but also in processing it the focus should go where the priorities lie. The priorities are in terms of serious crimes and that is why this bill has remarkably expanded the numbers of people who as suspects will be required to give DNA samples and I applaud that. The country applauds that. All parties but one in Parliament will vote for it. We have done that job and I can tell the member that the number of DNA samples—blood samples—taken in the last 2 years alone has more than doubled. So this Government is doing more than ever before— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: You haven’t answered the point I am making. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Dr Mapp should listen rather than just talk. He asked questions and I am about to answer them. He asked whether the world has changed since 1995. It has indeed and I will ask members to share with me the graph I have before me which is taken from the New Zealand crime statistics for 2002-03 from the office of the Police Commissioner. I will show it to the Committee. It graphs crime statistics between 1995 and 2003 per 10000 New Zealanders and lo and behold shows that the incidence of crime since 1995 has gone down. That is according to the Police Commissioner. So the member was right: the world has changed. Not only have crime figures gone down but I am proud to say according to police figures crime resolution rates have gone up. Crime is down resolution rates are up and there is more use of DNA. 
This legislation dramatically expands the use of DNA but we have set its use at a level that most New Zealanders would regard as sensible. Any serious offence is now covered by this legislation. DNA samples can be required from anybody in this country who commits a serious crime. Most New Zealanders think that is sensible. The National Party in Opposition is much braver than it was in Government; it wants to go much further now. This bill already goes much further than that Government was prepared to go 4 years before I became the Minister of Justice.