Borrows Chester: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Borrows Chester: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1121] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 Well that was pretty much what we have come to expect from the member who has just resumed his seat. He cannot attack ideas and he cannot attack the fact that the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill is good legislation that will go a long way down the track towards saving potential victims. All he can do is try to slap around the fact that it slipped past him. If he has been through a campaign such as the one we have been through and did not catch on to the fact that a National Government would introduce exactly this legislation we need to ask who was not doing his job. The member was not doing his job. He was not representing the people of his electorate and he certainly was not doing his job of representing Labour Party constituents. 
There is another important factor to note: the Attorney-General has studied this legislation and provided a report under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. What is required of the Attorney-General in a case like this is to do the job and to look at the bill and its implications in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We can stack that up against the record of the former Attorneys-General under the Labour Government. I ask what happened then. Did Margaret Wilson when she was the Attorney-General do that sort of scrutiny of the foreshore and seabed legislation? No she did not. What about Michael Cullen; did he perform that sort of scrutiny of the Electoral Finance Bill? No he did not. What is required of the Attorney-General in preparing a report such as this is to be objective and aloof and if there is one thing I can say about my little cousin Mr Finlayson it is that he is objective and aloof. Some would say he is objectionable but I would leap to his defence and I am sure his other cousin who is sitting opposite would agree totally with me. 
I would like Clayton Cosgrove to have a wee think about this. How many people who break into homes in the middle of the night and rape like the “Parnell Panther” did did not start off their offending with low-level crime? How many did not start off by kicking around the streets kicking over rubbish bins smashing windows and doing rats-and-mice burglaries? Now when those offenders are locked up for those sorts of offences they will have a DNA sample taken from them. It will be converted into a profile and that will be held on record. The rest of New Zealand applauds that. They say: “Good job too!”. 
Previously when the police took a rapist along to the doctor and those samples were taken the rapist’s hair was combed to retrieve hair follicles. The police stood next to that rapist while the doctor held his penis in his or her hands and shoved a Q-tip the size of a power pole down the end of the old fella to get a bit of penile secretion. That is intrusive. But we are talking now about a DNA sample that is collected by a Q-tip going inside the cheek and taking a swab which is then put into a plastic bag. That is as intrusive a measure as this piece of legislation provides for and if anyone objects to that he or she does not understand the situation and is not prepared to listen to an explanation of it. The fact is that DNA sampling is far less intrusive than having 10 big police officers roll the fingers of an unwilling person who has been arrested in order to take his or her fingerprints. DNA testing is no more than a modern-day fingerprint and the profile can be destroyed as soon as the charges are withdrawn or the defendant is found to be not guilty. I do not understand the objection that member has to this legislation apart from the fact that he never had the courage to raise it in the House in his term in Government. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Sit down. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Sit down. We are getting into the habit of taking swipes at each other through points of order. I have made this clear before. When any member raises a point of order it must be terse and to the point and it is not to be used to score points. Now if the member has a serious point of order he should make it tersely. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I do and it is simply—[ 
Interruption 
] Can I finish? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Well I do not know. You have already contradicted me which is out of order. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I agreed with you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am on my feet. You told a member to sit down but it is not your job to rule the House. Make your point of order tersely. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: It is totally out of order to question a member’s courage. I am sure that you as a senior officer of the House realise that. Had I been allowed to conclude more than two words that would have been the terse point of order that I made. I would invite you to rule on it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member is correct and the member who was speaking must withdraw. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Have you finished your speech? 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: Yes I have.