Bridges Simon: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9474] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 The financial review of the Ministry of Justice proceeded without great moment this year. That really has been the measure of the Justice and Electoral Committee throughout this year: it has been an uncontentious committee. There have not been a lot of headlines about it and—as the chairman Chester Borrows has said—members have on the whole worked collegially and cooperatively. I think that probably has something to do with the fact that we are seeing a Government that is implementing its election promises in the areas of law and order and justice. Alongside our pledges to make a difference in the economy those were the single biggest things upon which the National Party and John Key were elected. 
The review process has been good and uncontentious. Together with the Law and Order Committee this select committee has put through a large volume of legislation. My recollection off the top of my head is that it has considered about 11 substantial bills in the last year. That is not to say that it has been some sort of supermarket conveyor belt just pushing bills through. In fact—as again Chester Borrows has said—a lot of thought has been put in by the committee. There has been a huge amount of deliberation and of course a large amount of work by the Ministry of Justice officials who have done an excellent job particularly—as I think Rahui Katene said—in that 100-day period at the start of this Parliament. They had a huge amount to do and did it with aplomb. 
I do not want to go through all the legislation that has had impact in this area but I want to single out one bill. My view as a former criminal lawyer is that this bill along with one that was before the Law and Order Committee—the legislation on the proceeds of crime—will have the single most important impact and a large effect for the good of victims ultimately creating less victims in our society. The bill I am talking about is one that Chester Borrows talked about: the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Act 2009. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Fewer. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: What did I say? Was it bad English? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: You said “less”; it should have been “fewer”. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Thank you. Less victims— 
Hon Members 
: Fewer. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Fewer victims—that is a product of the school I went to. Chris Carter was my English teacher. That may have had something to do with it; I do not know. 
The legislation will create fewer victims—let us get that right—in a couple of ways. Firstly more criminals will be convicted because there will be more DNA on that database. Also important is the fact that if we take for example the David Dougherty case which I think everybody will remember—I think a DNA trace on his underpants saw him vindicated and cleared of a rape despite having been in prison for some time—we will see that not only are the guilty convicted but also the innocent are acquitted and as in his case the innocent going free after spending some time wrongfully behind bars. I think this is powerful legislation that will make a large difference along with the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act which has already seen in only a 2-month period many millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains taken from criminals—actually from just a small number of wealthy thugs. 
The Ministry of Justice officials are doing a great job for the Justice and Electoral Committee and for justice. If there is a golden thread that runs through everything we and the Law and Order Committee have done it is about victims. It is about getting a better deal for victims so that they see justice in the process but also so that there are ultimately less victims of crime. 
Report noted.