te Heuheu Georgina: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9455] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on this bill and I want to raise the issue of the seriousness with which this Minister takes the problem of serious heinous crime in New Zealand when today he introduces a 23-page Supplementary Order Paper. That may be OK for him because he has been planning this but for members in the House who have only just had the opportunity to try to digest it today it is totally unfair. On the other hand it gives an indication to the public of New Zealand as to whether this Minister is serious about fighting serious awful crime in New Zealand. I would suggest that the Minister think about whether he would show a more serious attitude by allowing this Supplementary Order Paper to go back to the Law and Order Committee so that it could be properly debated. It is totally unfair that he introduces this today in urgency when we will suddenly after 4 years rush this matter through the House. 
On the other hand this has now proven to be a regular modus operandi of a Government that I think in the end does not do things necessarily for the right reason and finds itself in a position where it is coming up to the end of the year and 4 years later I guess the Minister thinks: “Well gosh I guess it’s time I’d better get this bill through the House.” and so here we are. 
 It is worth reminding the House that he probably felt he needed to do something anyway. The Hon Tony Ryall had certainly progressed the work for the bill and was looking to address the matter before the 1999 election. He then had a member’s bill in the ballot and no doubt that would have put pressure on the Minister to do something about it. 
That is absolutely not good enough. Serious crime is up out there in real New Zealand and the public is worried about whether it has a Government that is serious about fighting serious crime. I guarantee that there is no New Zealand person out there who thinks that especially considering the Minister with the great barking he used to do when he was in Opposition and the promises he used to make of how he would address these matters. Four years later we are only just dealing with something on which a lot of the work had already been done when he came into power. 
The original Act that underpins the bill today came into force in 1996. Since then of course the technology of DNA testing has moved on significantly and accordingly this legislation updates the use of DNA testing as an effective crime-fighting tool. Goodness knows the police need every tool they can get to fight the level of serious offending that is now going on in New Zealand and of which we see evidence daily. 
Under the existing legislation there are two regimes for the collection of samples. The Part II suspect regime allows for blood samples to be obtained from those suspected of committing an indictable offence. While most people provide blood samples by consent the New Zealand Police can apply to the court for a compulsion order if consent is refused. The Part III databank regime differs in that while any person over the age of 17 may be requested to provide a blood sample to store in the databank he or she may be compelled to give a blood sample only following conviction for a relevant offence as listed in the schedule. 
The main provisions of the bill have been traversed by previous speakers. They allow for the use of improvements in technology over the last 4 years. I shall focus on a couple of matters that have been raised by a previous speaker the ACT MP Stephen Franks. I also want to ask why we are piffling around here when as I said crime soars. For instance why do we not extend the provisions to all those arrested? On the other side of the ledger there is the issue of civil liberties and the protection of individual rights. The select committee clearly covered that issue. But it would show a responsibility on the part of this House if we looked more seriously at extending the provisions of the legislation to include even those who are arrested on charges that have a penalty of potential imprisonment of 3 months or over or a more extended time if necessary. 
While it is important that we support this legislation it does not go far enough. At the end of the day the true benefit of the legislation will be known only by victims and their families if they are still around to talk about it and that is the problem. No one responsible citizen out there would think that we had gone far enough in addressing matters of serious crime. 
The other issue that was also raised previously by the United Future member of Parliament was concern about a different regime being applied to youth offenders. If members cast their minds back to some of the most serious crimes that have been committed over the last 12 months to 2 years or so the age of those offenders is a huge worry for law-abiding citizens who are entitled to safety and security. Of course with the awful rise in the use of the drug P and it seems that a lot of younger people are getting involved in using that drug one would have to question why the regime that applies to young offenders should be different. Again those are matters that members in this House were elected to address and it is not good enough that we have a regime that does not take into account the fact that the age of offenders has got younger and the seriousness of crimes committed by young people has become more dire. 
The select committee obviously worked its way through the issues put before it. I certainly agree that there needs to be a proper balance between the use and extension of crime-fighting tools such as DNA testing. That has to be balanced against the rights of the individual. No doubt the select committee report shows that the balancing act was one of the main issues addressed at the committee. But that being so this bill does not go far enough. It does not address the worries and the concerns of law-abiding citizens out there in the real world. This bill does not go far enough. Serious crime is up. We see it for ourselves day in and day out on our television stations and in our newspapers. Ask the victims of serious crime what it is like to be at the receiving end of some of the heinous activity that is now going on in our country. Members should think about the pairing of this legislation with the rising use of the drug P and whether we address that problem in the very modest way we do. 
Bill read a second time.