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:9470] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the third reading of this bill. National of course supports the bill—we made that clear to the Minister at the commencement of the Committee stage. We certainly recognise the advances that have been made in DNA technology in the last 10 years. As I mentioned earlier just prior to going out of Government in 1999 National had already put a considerable amount of work in place to update this area of activity. 
The Minister said that the ability of the police would be greatly enhanced by the provisions of this bill. Of course he is right; we do not dispute that fact. However the very fact that the police wanted more than has been provided suggests that they do not think the bill goes far enough. After all they are in the front line in the fight against violent crime and National would have supported further extensions to this legislation. Those were indicated during the Committee stage as well. 
As I said it is proper that the House supports this legislation. It is of some concern that the Greens do not. In an environment where violent crime is up it baffles belief that there is a party that purports to stand here for the rights of New Zealanders but does not support legislation that enhances the State’s ability to ensure the security and safety of law-abiding New Zealanders. It baffles belief that there is a party in this House that does not support this bill. I would be interested to see Green members trying on a public platform to justify why they do not want to help the police in their fight against violent crime in particular and why they are happy to be associated with a sort of flim-flam approach to justice. Most New Zealanders would be baffled as well. 
This legislation takes account of modern techniques and advances in technology over the last few years. National says that in time DNA technology will replace fingerprinting. We do not really understand why the Government was shy about extending the use of this technology even more. We in Parliament ought to show the public that we are serious about their safety and security and about tackling serious crime. The real test of whether the Minister has achieved what he says he set out to achieve by this piece of legislation will only be known by those who will unfortunately continue to be victims of serious crime and be fearful in their homes at night because of the levels of violence that have escalated in this country over the last few years. They are the people of concern here not whether some political party sounds as if it is smarter than another one—not at all. 
In that context we support this legislation and the Minister has widespread support in the House. But he should have been bolder and shown that he cared about the safety of New Zealanders and over the last 4 years he has had the opportunity to do so. He certainly took the opportunity to update the 1995 legislation but we think he was not bold enough and we are not on our own in that sense—the police and the Police Association sought further extensions still. 
I want to pick up on a theme that was raised by a colleague earlier. This is a Government that talks tough on crime but in the 1996-99 period—when I was first in Parliament and the Minister was in Opposition—he had a lot to say about the approach of the National Government and what he would do when he was the Minister of Justice. This has been his chance and he has not taken the opportunity to show the Government’s seriousness in respect of violent crime. That is the legacy he leaves particularly in the context of the rise in the use of the drug P. Whether the police ever get on top of the problem or not mark my words—we will see a severe escalation in criminal offending because of this dreaded curse. The drug P is everywhere and although the Government has taken steps to address this scourge in our view those measures have not been adequate. Combined with its pussyfooting around with regard to the extension of the DNA technology that is the subject of this bill it is unfortunate that we will witness worse to come. 
 That is an awful thing to have to say because as parliamentarians we come in here hoping to make a difference and it is a shame that when we have the opportunity to do that we are not bolder. It is necessary to strike a balance with civil liberties but the levels of offending in society are such that that balance in my view must shift. There is a level of criminal violent offending that is absolutely ghastly and absolutely not acceptable. I suggest that we will be back here in 2 or 3 years’ time putting in tougher measures—certainly tougher than this Government is prepared to be. 
Although this bill certainly updates the 1995 legislation it does not go far enough. The Minister talks tough but when it comes to the crunch his actions are soft and that is not good enough. The public of New Zealand will judge what sort of record he has in this matter. It certainly does not match the harking and the barking he did when he was in Opposition. He has had the chance to do something really bold and innovative and he has lost that chance. None the less National recognises the importance of the legislation as it is and supports it. 
I would ask the Minister again to seriously consider getting his officials after the Christmas break to consider the amendment proposed by my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp and see whether we can convince the public of New Zealand that as parliamentarians we do care about their safety we do care about their security and we are prepared to treat them in the serious manner they deserve.