Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) Link to this

I move, That the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This legislation forms part of the range of promises and undertakings made by National prior to the last election. I want to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its consideration of the bill. Its hard-working members, who have been working on many pieces of legislation since November 2008, no doubt consider themselves to have set the standard for carrying a large legislative workload. Their chairman, who, when it comes to these matters, is ever-patient and bipartisan, Chester Burrows, is to be congratulated for his work in this area, as well. I am advised that the Justice and Electoral Committee received 20 submissions from interested groups and individuals in respect of this bill, and heard from six submitters. The amendments recommended by the committee clarify the intent of the bill, and I acknowledge that they improve its consistency with the broader legislative framework such as the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989. I thank the committee for its work in that regard.

The Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill was introduced by the Government in its first 100 days in office. Its purpose is to expand the collection and use of DNA samples to assist the police in solving more crime. The bill will allow the police to collect DNA from a person whom they intend to charge with an offence, and then match that person’s DNA profile against DNA samples from other unsolved crime scenes. As I mentioned in this bill’s first reading some time ago, a DNA profile is the modern fingerprint. Forensic crime scene investigation has progressed to the point where even small amounts of trace evidence can now produce a usable DNA profile. The current DNA databank of 100,000 profiles was the second to be established in the world, and New Zealand scientists have been at the forefront of advances in extracting DNA profiles from crime scene trace evidence.

During the Justice and Electoral Committee’s consideration of the bill, the issue of judicial oversight prior to taking a sample was raised by submitters. That reflected the concerns raised by the Attorney-General in his report to this House under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. In response to those concerns, I note that there are a number of measures that will minimise the intrusiveness of the powers contained in the bill and will safeguard individuals’ rights, including existing remedies under the Evidence Act 2006 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Individuals can seek exclusion of evidence where the new power is used unreasonably. If the powers are used arbitrarily and breach an individual’s civil liberties, he or she can always seek compensation. In addition, operational guidelines have been developed by the police and the Ministry of Justice to assist the police in exercising their discretion to take a sample and to avoid the arbitrary application of this power. I am advised that the guidelines are designed to target the taking of samples. This means that those offenders who meet the criteria set out in the guidelines will be those who have a significantly higher chance of being responsible for unsolved crimes on the DNA profile database.

The Justice and Electoral Committee made a number of useful amendments to the bill, particularly around improving the process for taking a DNA sample from a young person, and I am grateful for that work. One of the changes is to limit the range of offences for which a sample can be taken from a young person to the more serious relevant offences specified in the Act. That will ensure that only the most serious young offenders are subject to this law. In addition, the criteria for taking a DNA sample from a young person have been significantly simplified. The committee concluded that the criteria for taking samples from young people repeated the protections that already exist in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, specifically in section 208. As such, the bill has been amended to provide that section 208 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act will apply and provide adequate protection for young people in custody.

The committee also amended the bill to prevent a DNA sample from being retained if a youth is discharged without conviction. This aligns with the process for the retention of DNA samples for adults. Another very important amendment was to protect a young person’s entitlement to have an adult present when a DNA sample is taken. This amendment aligns the process with the regime currently in place for young people being interviewed by the police.

The first priority of this Government in the justice portfolio has been to improve public safety. This bill contributes to that goal by giving the police the tools to resolve more crime and catch more offenders. It accompanies other important law enforcement initiatives, such as the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill, the Search and Surveillance Bill, the recently passed Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, and the hopefully soon-to-be-passed Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill. This is one of the many steps this Government has swiftly taken following the election to fulfil its promises to the public of New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this

I am pleased to take a call on the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill. The Minister of Justice, Simon Power, is right to point out that the Justice and Electoral Committee has been busy. The bill was quite technical when it came to its consideration by the select committee. I thank the officials who serviced the committee during its consideration of the bill. We required some guidance on some of the technical aspects, and we also received some very useful initial briefings from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research, which will be implicated directly with a heavy increase in its workload as a consequence of the changes this bill will make.

This bill makes considerable changes. I will reflect, though, on something that was discussed in the first reading debate of the bill, and, to a certain extent, during the select committee consideration. That issue is whether DNA is comparable to a fingerprint. Is it fair and right to call DNA the modern fingerprint? I think it is right that we insert a little bit of scientific reality into this discussion. The DNA collection that we are talking about, as opposed to fingerprint collection, is a much more intrusive and invasive procedure. Historically, it has been; the modernising of the process has reduced that somewhat. But because DNA links far beyond an individual fingerprint, and even has the ability to link into family and relatives, it is a broadening, in a sense. I know that my colleague Moana Mackey will have much to say on this particular matter from her scientific background.

I will go on to the substantive parts of the bill. For the Labour members of the committee, the most significant issue in the bill was the broadening of the definition of when DNA collection can be made. As it stands, the criteria for DNA collection depend on the severity of the offence, and collection applies at the point that a charge has been laid against a potential offender. This bill changes that considerably. It will allow DNA collection by the police without judicial approval at the point that they intend to charge, and it broadens the range of offences for which DNA collection can take place.

In the commentary on the bill, the Government has given the reason for judicial oversight not being included, and it is a matter of convenience. That is something that ultimately has to be weighed against the other consideration in this House, and that is the balance of someone’s individual freedoms and rights. Of course, DNA collection is a crime-fighting tool. Taken to the extreme, on one end of the scale we could take everyone’s DNA sample at birth. It could be recorded and documented, and then at any point when someone committed a crime, we could cross-check against that database. That is the extreme.

PAUL QUINN (National) Link to this

I say that this Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill is about nothing more than the modern-day fingerprint. It drags our identification systems into the 21st century so that we can go forward with confidence. I look forward to debating vigorously with my colleagues from the other side of the House, who, I must say, contributed strongly during the Justice and Electoral Committee’s deliberations, under the superb chairmanship of my friend and colleague Chester Borrows, and with outstanding contributions from Mr Bakshi and Simon Bridges. We look forward to having a vigorous debate during the Committee stage. With those few comments, I recommend this bill back to the House.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) Link to this

I say from the outset that Labour will be supporting the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Bill, but this support does not come without a number of concerns. I guess that at this stage our approach towards much of the National Government’s legislation is: “Oh well, it doesn’t help, but it doesn’t seem to harm too much, either. So I guess we can support it.”

Our No. 1 concern at this stage would be that all of this Government’s justice and law and order legislation shows a very narrow-minded approach towards law and order. This Government chooses to put the focus entirely on the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, rather than on an attempt in any way to build a gate at the top of the cliff. That is our concern, and it is the concern that many members of the public and the many people working in justice and law and order areas have, as well. They are concerned that all we are going to do is deal with the people who are committing crime, rather than do anything about preventing those crimes from occurring. That is probably the No. 1 concern of members on this side of the House.

Before discussing the contents of the bill before us, it is important that it is put into context with regard to the legislative amendments made by the previous Labour Government to significantly extend DNA testing. All too often in matters pertaining to law and order, this Government has attempted to create the perception that it is starting from scratch, when this is simply not the case. Labour has undertaken the groundwork. Therefore, to contextualise the proposed amendments, we need to look at the base that this Government is starting from.

In 2003 Labour passed legislation to amend the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act, which significantly increased the scope for the DNA testing of suspects. Under that Act, burglary suspects can be compelled to provide a DNA sample, including in circumstances where a crime scene sample is matched with a known offender’s DNA profile held on the police databank. Prior to that legislation, crime scene samples could not be used in evidence unless a fresh DNA sample was taken, and an alleged offender could refuse to give that sample. Under the 2003 legislation, which was, I say again, passed by the previous Labour Government, the offences for which someone may be compelled to give a sample have been significantly extended to cover crimes punishable by at least 7 years’ jail—such as motor vehicle conversion and some offences of receiving stolen goods, or any attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime.

Under that same legislation, DNA samples can be obtained by compulsion from prison inmates who were convicted of serious offences prior to the commencement of the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995. The police no longer need a court order to obtain a sample from a convicted person. However, a judicial hearing can be requested by people who believe that they are not liable to provide such a sample. Buccal, or mouth swabs, which are cheaper, less invasive, and just as accurate as blood samples, can now be given as an alternative.

Another significant part of Labour’s Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act of 2003 is the ability to obtain DNA samples from inmates currently in prison, who were convicted prior to 12 August 1996, when DNA testing was first introduced. Adding those inmates’ DNA profiles to the databank was intended to help police solve some historic cases. Prior to these amendments, the legislation gave authorisation to seek a compulsion order only, to obtain DNA samples for the police database from a person already convicted of burglary. This led to the ridiculous situation that when police found DNA material at the burglary scene and matched it to a profile on the databank, they were prohibited from using that match in criminal proceedings against the suspect. Now that we have contextualised the legislation that is before us, let us move on to the stated purpose of this bill.

The bill before us, the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill, will generally allow DNA to be collected by police without prior judicial approval at the point when they intend to charge a person for a wider range of offences, and to allow the DNA profile to be matched against other unsolved crime scene samples prior to the person’s conviction or acquittal. The bill aims to recognise DNA as the modern-day fingerprint to assist the police to solve more crime by having more identified DNA profiles to match against the increasing number of DNA samples obtained from unsolved crime scenes. The stated purpose might seem reasonable, but a number of concerns have been raised by submitters, by us, and by members of the public.

Labour agrees that DNA profiling is an essential investigative tool in mainstream policing. That is why Labour has already amended legislation to significantly extend DNA testing. Labour is not opposed to a further extension of DNA testing, but is unclear whether this legislation will have a significant impact on serious crime, considering the changes Labour already made when in Government. Labour members are concerned that National is proposing to test all those arrested, not just those charged, with the reality being that a large proportion of the people who are arrested are not charged. This means that under National’s proposed system many tests would be thrown out, resulting in a poor use of money and police resources. Considering the rigmaroles this country has been put through by this National Government in respect of cuts to what Labour deems essential services, projects, programmes, initiatives, and incentives, we find it difficult to comprehend that the Government would be willing to waste money on something such as this. When I talk about cuts, I am talking about things like cuts to adult and community education, the Gifted Kids Programme, the training incentive allowance, police vehicles and resourcing, overseas development assistance, Māori and Pacific scholarships—the list goes on and on. Yet National will implement this legislation in the knowledge that a number of the samples taken will be a waste of time and will be thrown away, which results in a poor use of policing resources and funding.

The Attorney-General has reported inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Christopher Finlayson said the DNA plan appears to be inconsistent with the rights against unreasonable search and seizure under the Bill of Rights, because it would give police the power to take DNA from those whom they intend to charge with an imprisonable offence without the safeguard of judicial or other independent approval. Mr Finlayson said such safeguards were required in jurisdictions that used a comparable DNA scheme, including New South Wales, Victoria, Canada, the United States, Germany, Japan, and the Netherlands. He said he could not see any special circumstances in New Zealand to justify not having statutory safeguards.

The Human Rights Commission has expressed concerns that the proposed changes go too far. The criminal bill allows police to take DNA from anyone charged with an imprisonable offence, whereas the current law has a much higher threshold for serious offences punishable by more than 7 years in prison. The Human Rights Commission says that the bill infringes the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. It also increases the possibility of discrimination on the grounds of race and family status, and impacts disproportionately on youth.

That was from the Human Rights Commission, and we have heard from the Attorney-General. The Privacy Commissioner has now expressed concerns that the changes proposed jeopardise the value of the existing criminal DNA databank in detective and preventive crime by undermining public trust in the police and the Government. The commissioner says that if police were able to take DNA from a wider range of people, there should be oversights through an independent committee of additional audit powers, and she wants the bill’s recommendation for samples for all imprisonable offences dropped, as well as the bid to retain samples for longer than 2 years after a suspect has been cleared.

Treasury has stated that it views the regulatory impact statement for this legislation as being inadequate for a number of reasons, including a lack of clarity around the nature of the problems with the current DNA testing regime, along with anecdotal and empirical evidence to support these reasons. The next reason Treasury gives for the legislation being inadequate is the limited analysis of the impacts of the option. The analysis of costs is partial; for example, only aggregate first-year costs are estimated, and capital costs are excluded. There is no assessment of risk, such as risks related to implementation, and how these might be mitigated. We do not know the costs involved or the risks.

It seems very negligent that a Government that has spoken so often on the fact that we are in the middle of a recession, or that we need some fiscal restraint, would go into something that it has not fully costed out. But that is exactly what this Government has done. I have expressed Labour members’ concerns. We will support this bill, but we will be making recommendations in respect of the submissions made and the advice received from various people across the different advisory groups, including the Human Rights Commission.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) Link to this

DNA is potentially a very powerful tool in the toolbox for police and the justice sector. To pick up on something that some of the other members speaking on this have said, DNA is an extraordinarily powerful fact of life and piece of technology that has developed hugely over the years. In going back not so long ago, it would take a large blob of blood, semen, spit, or some other bodily fluid—at least a good 50c piece—before DNA could be traceable. Today, with the advances in technology, trace DNA can be picked up invisible to the human eye, and so small that it cannot be detected in any form. From that, human DNA can be used in court. The power of this technology is amazing.

At a broad-brush level, the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill is very simple. I accept that there is detail about the point at which people’s DNA may be taken kicks in. A morass of detail is needed in legislation like this, but, at its base, we have here an expansion of a database to suitable persons’ DNA so that more crime will be solved, and that is a very good thing.

In reference to the last bill dealt with in this House, where victims’ rights were put more centre stage in the criminal justice system, here we have a bill that will result in more crime being solved, which means more victims vindicated, able to move on with their lives, and ultimately, in fact, fewer victims as more crime is solved.

But I take seriously the point that Jacinda Ardern has made, in that there is a balance here to be struck. There is a spectrum. At one end, we could simply test every newborn child; no one would reasonably advocate that. There needs to be a way to whittle it down to suitable persons, and we have done that in this bill. Have we struck the right balance in this bill? I think we absolutely have. Philosophically and practically, what could the concerns possibly be? Theoretically, I suppose, there is a privacy concern. There is a certain intrusiveness. But the means by which DNA can be taken are much less intrusive than they have been. It is a mere minor inconvenience with a swab. I think that is very light, indeed. It is a minor inconvenience. I accept, of course, there is then the keeping of the DNA profile. But let us be very clear about that. It is only in the cases where people have been convicted, ultimately for long-term use. There are strict, specific provisions in the bill in relation to the use and storage of the DNA.

Another concern that could be thrown up is a slight—and I say this is a theoretical concern, because I think it simply is that—increase in wrongful convictions, which is theoretically possible. In fact, I think that is quite far-fetched. More accused who would otherwise have been in the frame for crime will, in fact, be excluded through this technology. They will be excluded and there will be more rightful convictions. We have high-profile examples of the ultimate exclusion following wrongful convictions of people through the powerful use of DNA. One example is David Dougherty in New Zealand. I was young, even younger than I am today, at the time, but if my memory serves me correctly he was convicted for serious crimes and served time in jail. It was only through advances in DNA that he was freed. Every member of this House will be aware of the very large number of cases of, basically, only men—I think a small number of women, but a lot of men—on death row in the United States who have had convictions overturned through the use of technology and DNA, as we have caught up.

So it may sound a bit glib, but I do think there is a sense with this bill that if one is innocent, one has nothing to fear. There may be some minor inconvenience but this is a very strong tool in the toolbox that we are giving police and our justice system for all the right reasons. I commend this bill to the House.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this

I am very pleased to be able to take a call on the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill. I do this from the perspective of someone who has done DNA analysis. With the greatest of respect to the speaker who has just resumed his seat, Simon Bridges, some of the concerns that I have and that I hope can be sorted out were ones he highlighted absolutely for me.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) Link to this

I stand to support the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill. Improving law and order in New Zealand is a critical priority for the National-led Government. Our actions over the past 11 months have reflected that priority. We share New Zealanders’ concerns about the growing levels of violent crime. We are determined to make our communities safer, to promote the security of law-abiding New Zealanders, to improve public safety, and to ensure that there are appropriate consequences for offenders.

In its first 100 days the National-led Government introduced legislation to expand DNA sampling of suspects and to match samples taken at crime scenes against profiles in order to help resolve hundreds of cases that might otherwise have gone cold. DNA is a 21st century fingerprint. DNA profiling is an invaluable tool for identifying and catching criminals. The Government believes that DNA samples should be taken in a wider range of circumstances. Our rationale for this is simple: if we use DNA profiling to catch and punish criminals earlier, we will prevent them from creating more victims. This bill is a key component of the Government’s law and order package. We are firmly focused on creating safer homes, streets, and neighbourhoods for all New Zealanders.

DNA carries a unique genetic code for individuals. Current technology allows bodily samples like blood, saliva, and semen to be processed and reassembled in the form of a barcode that can be matched with other samples taken from crime scenes. This procedure is an important investigative tool, resulting in virtually conclusive proof of identity. It may be used to pinpoint an offender as well as to clear an innocent suspect. The bill allows police to collect DNA from a person they intend to charge with an offence and, prior to that person’s conviction or acquittal, match the person’s DNA against profile samples from the scenes of other unsolved crimes.

In conclusion, the measures proposed in this bill will subsequently increase the size of the DNA profile databank. The increased size of the databank will aid criminal investigation by linking offenders in the databank both to the scenes of unsolved crimes and, potentially, to scenes of future crimes. DNA’s role in solving more crimes and identifying more offenders will, in turn, contribute to increased public safety and public confidence in the justice system. Thank you.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this

I will make a couple of brief comments in respect of the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill and correct something that Mr Bridges said. Any time members of the Opposition raise points of conjecture or points in this bill that we believe need to be examined, someone from the Government—and I do not include Mr Borrows in this, as I sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee as he chaired it through consideration of the bill and I think he did an admirable job—always pops his or her head up and says that we are not supporting the bill. Well, as my colleague Moana Mackey has said, we are supporting it, but we have an obligation, as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, to raise issues of concern. This is the debating chamber in which this legislation should be rigorously examined and, hopefully, with the contribution of many members, improved. It is our job as a Parliament to control the quality of this sort of legislation.

I, for one, have had the privilege of seeing the police use this technology on a number of occasions, and I support its use. Members who have said that this modern technology is another tool in the police’s tool box are right. It provides huge advantages. Before I rose to speak I was speaking with my colleague Moana Mackey about the David Dougherty case. As I understand it, that is in essence an example of technology freeing an innocent person. Had it not been for that technology, who knows what the consequences would have been in respect of Mr Dougherty’s life? Equally, looking at historical technologies we can recall the case of Arthur Allan Thomas, where evidence was planted using, shall we say, different technology from the contemporary one we are discussing now.

Although Labour members support the bill and think it is essential—it will aid policing and the uncovering of crime—my colleague and others have raised some concerns in respect of, for instance, judicial oversight. It is a basic principle that there need to be some substantial safeguards. My colleague has already referred to criminal elements that are technologically literate; we fool ourselves today if we do not believe they exist. With respect, it is a little bit like the accountancy profession, which is charged with finding new loopholes, and likewise the legal profession in legislation. They do that legally, of course. The criminal profession is adequately resourced to discover loopholes in legislation designed to prevent criminal activity—and by loophole, in this context, I mean illegality.

My colleague and others have said that there is some evidence to suggest that criminal elements are using and planting DNA evidence. That is a concern and a worry, and it raises the spectre that this technology has to be used with a high degree of quality and quality assurance. For that reason, we are proposing that there be substantial judicial oversight. I heard some arguments against that in terms of ability to obtain access and warrants—officials said that police could lack access to justices of the peace when trying to gain authorisation to do certain tasks permitted within this legislation. As one who had an oversight with justices of the peace and who administered their appointments, I know that we are flooded with them. I do not think I received complaints from the police or others that they could not access justices of the peace in the execution of after-hours search warrants. We simply put the case up that although we support this legislation, we feel that there need to be a couple of safeguards, and those safeguards need to be tightened up. People like Mr Bridges make glib comments every time this side raises some concerns in a genuine way; he tries to perpetuate some myth that we are not supporting it, because we have the audacity to raise some concerns. But far from that, we raise our concerns in a legitimate way and we will be putting forward proposals that we believe will strengthen the legislation.

I must say that when listening to some of the submitters, the counterfactual prevailed and a number of conspiracy theories were put forward to the committee. From a personal point of view, I was less than impressed with the Human Rights Commissioner’s submission. I was more impressed with the Privacy Commissioner’s submission. I think those of us who heard the Human Rights Commissioner’s submission on what potentially could happen and what had allegedly happened around the world found that, to put it bluntly, very little substantiated evidence was put to the committee about some of the conspiracy theories in those submissions. My colleague Moana Mackey made some very good points based on scientific knowledge and evidence rather than simply conjecture. I hope—if there is anyone from the Human Rights Commission listening—they might clean up their act a little bit in respect of that—

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

It is a pleasure to stand in support of the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill. I commend the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee and the goodwill that was exchanged across the table. We all learnt a heck of a lot more about DNA than we realised there was for us to learn in such a short space of time. I also commend the way the matter was debated around the table. I think it is important to note that what lies behind this is safety. The reason why the National Party introduced into its policy that we would remove a sample of DNA from everybody arrested for an imprisonable offence was safety. Those offenders who go on to commit crimes, especially heinous crimes—the rapes, murders, home invasions, and the serious assaults—against the person generally started off their offending at low-level Summary Offences Act offences. If we were in a position to identify their DNA very early in the piece, by the time they got down the track to committing those more serious crimes, for instance, we would have them on DNA left at the scene of the crime.

I think we have to say, not to anyone in particular, that generally it is about the victims, stupid. So often these days we can get carried along on a wave that is looking at rights and freedoms without ever caring about, or paying any cognisance at all of, the responsibilities of living in a civilised society. Although we enjoy rights and freedoms in this society, we have to acknowledge that they come with a responsibility. The first responsibility of a Government is to protect the public. There has been strong, stringent judicial oversight of the DNA-securing process in the past. That is because the technology used in the past always required a blood sample to be taken. That is why it was seen as such an intrusion into somebody’s person and there needed to be a judicial warrant to do that.

Under this legislation, the DNA swab is taken by the alleged offender by taking a Q-tips cotton swab and putting it inside his or her cheek, taking it out, and handing it to the waiting police officer. No one has the sample taken by somebody else and no one is held down to have the sample taken by force. In actual fact, it is taken by the alleged offenders themselves with their own cheek swab—it is as intrusive as that. So there is no need for judicial oversight in respect of DNA swabs taken in that way as there has been before.

Another thing we need to bear in mind is that DNA exculpates as well as implicates. The previous speaker, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, mentioned David Dougherty and how he was exculpated for a rape he had been convicted for. There are numerous other suspects who are removed from an inquiry with the use of DNA. We have to bear that in mind, and that is a very strong point.

I want to pick up on some of the points made by some of the other speakers. A previous speaker, Carmel Sepuloni, said that a large number of those arrested are not charged, but that is not true. I suggest that probably less than 1 percent of those who are arrested are never charged. They go in front of a court, charges may be withdrawn at a later time, and in that situation, if all the charges are withdrawn, the DNA sample would also be disposed of. That is true, but it would be disposed of before the identifying stage. It would not be taken and sent away, then identified, profiled, logged on a database, and then there is not a conviction or the charges are withdrawn. There is very little administrative cost in holding that sample until the conviction is entered.

Another point contained within the legislation is that the DNA sample is activated by charging. That means that the DNA sample of somebody who was arrested and taken before the court and later diverted, after a guilty plea for instance, would be retained. The sample is kept on charging, and that is a significant thing to remember. There is not a lot of administrative cost in doing what we are doing up until the point of conviction, in any event, because it is only after that that the DNA is profiled.

The previous speaker, Jacinda Ardern, said that DNA was not the modern fingerprint, because it has the ability to give a lot more information than, for instance, a fingerprint can; it does more than just identify the person, and that is correct. But I also pick up on the point that Moana Mackey made: although there are several hundred identifiers with any sample of DNA, under this profiling only about 16 points are identified, and they are not points that go to hereditary identifiers and those sorts of identifiers.