I can now report that this process has been greatly accelerated and I am appalled at the utter silliness that sometimes prevails in the House.

My rapid education came during a recent debate in the House on two pieces of legislation; the Criminal Investigations (Blood Samples-Burglary Suspects) Amendment Bill, sponsored by National MP, Tony Ryall, and the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill, a Government Bill in the name of Justice Minister, Phil Goff.

There's no doubt that we need a bill to extend the use of DNA as a weapon against crime. The real question is which of the two Bills before Parliament will do the best job.

The Ryall Bill certainly widens the scope of DNA use by including both burglary and entering with intent. That's a good start.

But the Ryall Bill does not take advantage of the advances of science to include provisions for the use of Buccal (mouth) swabs when obtaining DNA.

The Government's Bill does. It is a non-invasive procedure, it is faster, cheaper and, with a nod to our multi-culturalism, less likely to offend ethnic and religious sensibilities.

While such offence may be a small matter to some, it is important to note that under our system we are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. These swabs have the power to exonerate as effectively as they can incriminate.

The Ryall Bill has no provision to change any stipulation with respect to the testing of inmates.

The Government's Bill will mean that those in prison and some 400 odd of our most serious offenders will be profiled. The Government Bill will repeal the 6-month limitation for obtaining a sample of those convicted of a scheduled offence, and serving a sentence with respect to that offence.

Furthermore, the Government's Bill will be more effective by being simpler and more straightforward to carry out. The power to arrest has been widened to affect a DNA compulsion where an offender is likely to abscond. The Ryall Bill has no provision in this regard, nor does it have provisions to ensure that biological material that can be reasonably traceable to an offender, including foetal matter, be obtained.

In short, although I applaud the Ryall Bill in its intent, I feel unable to support it because the Government's own Bill, the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill is broader, simpler and, in the long run gives greater confidence in the ability to do what it sets out to do.

Yet when I pointed out to the House this entirely commonsense approach, I was subjected to a storm of abuse from the Opposition, who, incredibly, claimed that I should support the Ryall Bill and simply amend it later to look more like the Government Bill.

That is just plain dumb. It's like saying you should buy a Morris Minor and then give it a paint job and a hood ornament and call it a Rolls Royce.

National claimed that I was being a Government lapdog by supporting a Government Bill. I prefer to see it as evidence that I have a brain and can use it.

If National was really interested in fighting crime effectively, they would take credit for pushing the Government into bringing forward a Bill that is expanded and well-crafted, rather than trying to score cheap political points by promoting inferior legislation.

This episode has shown me why New Zealand needs United Future New Zealand MP's in Parliament; because we think for ourselves and then apply that thinking. It's called commonsense.

ENDS