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:9474] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 Jules Mikus is a name that would have remained obscure if it had not been for the power of DNA testing to resolve a heinous crime 15 years after it was committed and bring some closure to the family and friends of Teresa Cormack. Without DNA testing that loser would have enjoyed the kinds of liberties that he denied his victims. David Dougherty was a name that was mud for 3½ years and would have been tarnished forever had it not been for the power of DNA testing to clear that man’s name and just as important assist the police to find the real offender. In the United States DNA evidence cleared Earl Washington of a brutal rape and murder after 10 years on death row and within 9 days of his execution. 
This bill attempts to apply the powerful logic of DNA testing to an expanded number of offences and allows for an expanded range of sampling. United Future supports the intent of this bill but as I noted earlier we would like to see those powers extended to an even wider range of offences. It is not as if much doubt remains about the evidential weight of DNA matching. Unlike a fingerprint that can be conclusively linked to a particular individual DNA matching is based on the probability of samples being from the same person. However with increasingly sophisticated testing technology that probability is becoming more and more convincing in respect of passing judgment on the accused. Even a former President of the United States has faced up to the weight of probability as the odds that the genetic traces found on Miss Lewinsky’s dress were not those of Bill Clinton were estimated to be 1 in 7.87 million. The identity of the American Unabomber was assisted by the analysis of saliva left on a letter bomb he sent that did not explode. 
Having said that I point out that several mistakes in the identification of offenders have occurred in overseas jurisdictions but they were all caused by errors in handling the samples as subsequent testing showed. I might add that the committee viewed the operations of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd laboratory and was satisfied that the integrity of samples was maintained throughout the process even with about 10000 samples to process a year. It must be acknowledged that DNA matching is but one part of a prosecution case and is most useful when placed alongside other evidence such as fingerprints crime-scene investigations and eyewitness accounts. 
We acknowledge the Government’s decision to expand the range of offences to which DNA sampling and matching applies. I am particularly pleased to know that the bill will compel some of the worst criminals still in custody particularly those interned before 1996 to provide a sample. That would include scum like Paul Dally Paul Bailey and Peter Holdem molesters and murderers of Karla Cardno Kylie Smith and Louisa Damodran respectively. Of course in an ideal world those guys would never get out but when and if they do at least the police will have the goods on them. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I was discussing the value of DNA matching and I included a number of individuals—molesters and murderers—who were caught through DNA processes and some of whom were caught a substantial period after their offending. But we do ask if DNA matching is of such value for serious offences why it should not be applied to all those arrested for all crimes. 
Rodney Hide 
: And MPs. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: My own suspicion is that that restriction should be placed on Rodney Hide for a start! It should be put in place merely to limit the costs of processing samples and I challenge the Minister in the chair Phil Goff to prove me wrong by committing more resources to this work in the next Budget. The emphasis here should be on the resolution of crime and perhaps even the prevention of crime as the knowledge that a criminal’s DNA is on the database would serve to deter that criminal from reoffending. 
Rodney Hide 
: Hear hear! 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: The member should hang on. That process is underlined by Jules Mikus’ interview with the police in which the accused went from confidently protesting his innocence at one moment to a wailing confession of guilt in the next once he was confronted by the news that the DNA matched. But DNA matching is not aimed just at nailing the guilty. It can also speed up an investigation by helping to narrow down a list of suspects and reducing the possibility of following false leads. Using the technology for all crimes would send a message to criminals and victims. It would tell victims that the police were doing as much as they possibly could to catch perpetrators. It would send a message to even the most petty of criminals that any transgression of the law is unacceptable. 
The Government’s justification of the application of DNA testing to burglary is that it is seen as a gateway crime to more serious offences. Invading a person’s property gives burglars the psychological licence to invade a person’s body through some form of violence. Most of us could not even consider entering other people’s property without invitation and rifling through their possessions but even for a first-time burglar there is some preconditioning that allows him or her to undertake such a crime. That may be an offence as seemingly petty as tagging or shoplifting—something so petty that is punished so lightly that the offender knows he or she can live with the consequences. Each time those criminals commit another more serious crime they become more accustomed to the incremental nudge in sentencing. I say that we should treat all crime with the same severity of disapproval and this bill misses an opportunity to do so by not imposing DNA sampling on all suspects. However it is still a major step forward. 
I am sickened when I see that so many Opposition members spend so much time criticising such a major step forward. It is not a perfect bill but no bill is and there is a huge opportunity further down the track for amendments that could tighten and expand it. We acknowledge the initiative of Phil Goff in putting it through and I would also like to thank personally the other members from all the different parties of the Law and Order Committee. There was a great deal of consensus in tightening it up. I also thank the New Zealand Police Association which certainly steered us in the right direction of expanding the number of crimes for which DNA sampling should be applied—which we got thanks to National and New Zealand First as well as United Future. I acknowledge that Labour had the opportunity to accommodate those interests and that Phil Goff saw them through. 
I also thank the Sensible Sentencing Trust for putting forward an incredibly heart-rending story. They brought victims of crime some of whom had first-hand experience of a sense of closure directly related to DNA profiling of perpetrators of crimes that put the buggers away. That is what this bill is intended to do and it will do that. I commend it to the House.