Fairbrother Russell: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) — First Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19588] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of this bill. I want to speak on two of the proposed amendments. The first is the amendment to the Animal Welfare Act that extends the time for laying information from 12 months to 2 years. The second—which strangely enough I consider has tenuous links to the first—is an amendment to the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act. 
On the issue of the Animal Welfare Act it is quite appropriate that we increase the time for laying information for two reasons. Firstly it is not always readily apparent that the way an animal has been treated has resulted in an overt sign of injury. Secondly an increasing body of literature now suggests that those who mistreat animals for other than reasoned purposes indicate a deeper problem that reflects itself in the way those people relate to other human beings. So there is a synergy between this issue and the safety of people in our community and I therefore urge greater freedom for the laying of information once the potential offences under the Act have been discovered. 
As we are talking about potential offences and offenders thereof I turn now to the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act. It does not really matter whether a sample is taken by a nurse or a registered nurse or whether a warrant is authorised by a sergeant or a senior sergeant because by the time these processes are in place the checks and balances have already commenced. These amendments are merely procedural. The threshold to require the taking of a bodily sample is the essential issue and that threshold is gradually being lowered as we gain more confidence in the DNA process. 
The DNA process is as important to our criminal prosecutions as the discovery of fingerprints was over 100 years ago. The point we often forget however is that DNA does not prove a connection; DNA merely establishes on the balance of probabilities whether the blood of the suspect who provides a DNA sample matches the blood left at a crime scene or that any bodily samples from the suspect match those on the victim. So it is not a question of definitive proof but a question of reducing probabilities of difference and that is the key issue in prosecutions relying on DNA. It is not the method by which the bodily sample is extracted or even the level of the threshold requiring that. 
The focus of concentration in ensuring that DNA remains an effective and major investigative tool is the way we compare the samples and the use of the formula to make that comparison to remove other possibilities or probabilities relating to the match of the two samples. So once the threshold is established the fact that the sample is taken in an ordered environment is about all that is needed. We are not for example talking about a great invasion of a person’s body. The sample is either from the mouth—a buccal sample—or a prick of blood from the thumb any of which is an injury that one would suffer in the normal event of living and would cause minimal interference or discomfort. What is important for an accurate sample is that the chain of evidence can be relied upon rather than the degree of invasion of the person from whom the sample is taken. So if we put in too many hurdles in relation to who can take the samples we diminish the effectiveness of this major investigative tool. 
If we minimise those hurdles we concentrate on the process by which the sample is recorded forwarded for processing and processed so that ultimately we can all be satisfied that the results obtained by the comparing of a sample from a suspect with a sample from a crime scene is most likely to be accurate and so that any jury acting upon it can do so with safety. So for those reasons I support this bill. 
There are many other aspects in the bill. I do not want to get into the continental shelf debate. Clearly it is important that we define the continental shelf correctly. I do not want to get into the cadastral survey aspect because again that is an area where we need some accuracy and these amendments merely tidy it up. But strangely enough there is a link between the Animal Welfare Act and the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act. It is not a direct link but it is a link to improve our investigation of those of a criminal mindset who cause ultimate disruption to the way we live as a community.