Mapp Wayne: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9461] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The reason I am taking a call is that the Minister said he was addressing the concerns I raised when I said that as matter of principle—and I recognise that it is an issue of principle and I can concede that the Government may not wish to totally overturn its thinking about the bill by one two-line clause—why is it that all persons charged with offences capable of carrying a term of imprisonment should not give a DNA sample? I presume that the Minister thought he had answered me but he did not. It is quite a direct straightforward proposition. Did he say that yes the ministry will look at the proposition and that if it seems a reasonable proposition then he will introduce legislation next year? Did he answer my simple question? 
I listened for over 5 minutes and I did not hear a single direct statement that the Ministry of Justice would be directed to examine that basic proposition. I did not put the proposition forward without a lot of thought. I have thought about the issue over the years and the Minister well knows that I have referred to DNA as being the modern fingerprint. I ask the Government with all its resources—those hundreds of bureaucrats paid by hardworking law-abiding New Zealand taxpayers—why it would not undertake the research necessary to consider the proposition. That is the proposition that was put to the Minister. Instead he wittered on about what had happened in 1996 and 1998 and all those sorts of things and about the huge schedule. He was as the Speaker says addressing the question not answering the question. So often on this side of the Chamber we have heard Ministers address questions but not answer them. 
I believe that I put a reasonable proposition to the Minister. I was not making a political point as such. I put a reasonable proposition for the Ministry of Justice to consider. If it thinks fit after all its deliberations then a bill could be introduced to the House in 2004 that would embody that proposition. Obviously it would replace the 1996 legislation and obviously it would replace the amendment bill of 2002. But that is the way the law develops particularly when we are talking about a new form of technology which everyone now considers an effective form of identification. My colleague referred to the fact that in a few years time we will think of fingerprint databases as quaint and old-fashioned. We are asking the Government to consider the proposition that it should look at DNA as the new technology that would essentially replace fingerprinting. 
My final point is that the Minister thinking that he had the killer fact said that crime is down since 1995. He was not prepared to dig beneath the surface of the fact because he knows that the crime that concerns New Zealanders—violent crime—is up. Can the Minister get on his feet in this Chamber and deny that violent crime has gone up in the last year? He knows that is the case. He knows that violent crime has increased across the board. He might say that burglaries are down and he is right. Burglaries are down over an extended period of time not due to police surveillance operations but largely due to the fact that the public have had to take their own measures and install burglar alarms. Now we can hardly see a house in New Zealand without a burglar alarm. That is why crime is down.