Cosgrove Clayton: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1118] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Let me say from the outset that Labour will support with reservations the referral of the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill to the select committee. I say that for a number of reasons which I will get to in a moment but I also note the point we made during the debate on the last bill that here we are in the dead of night quite literally rushing this bill through a first reading with no opportunity for members to read this legislation at length analyse it and debate it. Before Mr Hide raises his hackles—we will get to his role in this in a moment—I say that it will go to the select committee for the full 6 months. The point has already been made with the gangs legislation that this is about window dressing. On about day 84 I think of the 100 days Mr Power and Mr Key can get up and say that they have these bills on the road; they are happening. That is all it is about. 
I will raise a couple of things in respect of this bill. Mr Power said that one of the key questions before us is whether we are using DNA technology to its best effect. He admitted that he does not know; the technology changes day to day and month to month. But it is interesting to look at the assessments that are made. Labour agrees that it is essential to use DNA technology. We are not opposed to extending the use of DNA technology. I have to say that as the record will show Labour passed the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Act 2003 which made many extensions in respect of DNA sampling. This is where Mr Hide I am sure being the bastion of regulation busting will again take an interest in this bill. This bill has been so rushed that not only did it fail the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vetting—and I accept Mr Power’s comment that there are a lot of complex issues on both sides of that argument—but also if one looks at this bill’s regulatory impact statement which I am sure Mr Hide knows backwards because as the regulatory buster he will have scrutinised this legislation— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Open and transparent. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —Mr Power says it is open and transparent—it says this under the adequacy statement. I will quote from this section: “Treasury’s Regulatory Impact Analysis Team (RIAT) has not had sufficient time to assess whether or not the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for this proposal is adequate.” [ 
Interruption 
] My colleague said that Mr Power should be ashamed. Well as we read on I suspect he will shrink lower and lower under the desk. I go on to quote from the adequacy statement: “However we”—that is Treasury—“have briefly reviewed the [regulatory impact statement] and consider that this is inadequate on the following grounds:”. Before I get to those I say that I am reliably informed by my colleague Lianne Dalziel the previous Minister of Commerce who takes great interest in these regulatory impact statements that this is a prizewinner. This is an absolute prizewinner for how badly put together legislation can be. It is absolutely the prizewinner for us. Here is what Treasury said about it and I will go back a bit: “However we have briefly reviewed the [regulatory impact statement] and consider that this is inadequate on the following grounds: a lack of clarity around the nature of the problems with the current DNA testing regime along with evidence (anecdotal or empirical) to support these;”— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Not even anecdotal evidence! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: We are not into news clippings now like we were with the bail bill. The Minister does not even have news clippings to substantiate his claims around DNA testing. There is no empirical evidence no anecdotal evidence. Mr Hide of course with his new hairstyle and all will have scrutinised this legislation being the regulatory buster. Then Treasury goes on to state that the regulatory impact statement is inadequate on the second ground: “limited analysis of the impacts of the options. The analysis of costs is partial”. Mr Power said that once put aside these DNA tests—which I am told cost around $200 a pop—will be disposed of. I ask him whether he or another speaker will tell the House what the cost of this is because Mr Power campaigned on having no bureaucracy on cutting bureaucracy on cutting costs on cutting red tape cutting the administration and on cutting the waste. None of those questions as Treasury has pointed out are addressed in this. 
 So there is limited analysis of the impact of the options. The analysis of cost is partial. For example only aggregate first-year costs are estimated and capital costs are excluded. There is no estimate—this is a cracker—of risks such as those associated with implementation or of how these will be mitigated. Not only does the Government not know what the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill will cost not only does it have no empirical or even anecdotal evidence or news clippings or perhaps printed matter on some other piece of paper but the Government does not know what it costs it does not know what the risks are and it does not really know whether it will have any impact at all in respect of implementation. 
Then we get to the last point and I quote Treasury that the regulatory impact statement “does not report on the outcome of consultation”—yeah I bet it does not because the Government has no evidence and it did not consult anybody not even the regulatory buster Mr Hide haircut and all—“and how any issues raised have been addressed. Therefore the [regulatory impact statement] does not contain the relevant information or level of analysis required for a proposal of this magnitude.” In other words this should be a blank piece of paper because nobody really knows what it means least of all the Minister. No costs no evidence no anecdotal evidence no nothing no consultation. If the Minister had gone out and talked to some of the stakeholders maybe even the agencies even the police perhaps he may have got some evidence. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He talked to Mrs Goudie about it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am reliably informed that the anecdotal evidence such as it is has been provided by one Sandra Goudie. Again it points to the classic member down the back here Mr Hide being asleep at the wheel—the man who was going to cut red tape regulation everything. He was going to do it. “Send your problems to Mr Hide” he said on  
Holmes 
 “Send them to me: I will fix them I will cut the cost.” He was too lazy too inept and too silly to even read the bill. I wonder whether he will stand up tonight and say “I have read it and I agree. We don’t know how much it is going to cost. We don’t know how it’s going to work. We don’t have any evidence. We don’t know how it’s going to be implemented—we know nothing about it.” 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: There might be a miracle. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It might be a miracle. He might be able to claim that he has earned some of his salary. I think we are up to five bills now that the great regulatory buster Mr Hide has let slip through with failed regulatory impact statements. He might want to intervene. I ask whether Mr Hide has read the regulatory impact statement whether he knows how much it will cost and whether he was consulted. He has his glasses on; there is hope. 
I say to Mr Power in all seriousness that Labour agrees that we should use technology to combat crime. We acted on that when we extended DNA sampling when we were in Government. I think Mr Power has made history tonight. In my experience—and I have been here only 9 years but others also tell me—that this is the worst condemnation of a bill. A key central agency Treasury has said that this is inadequate that it is rushed— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Flimflam. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —no worse than flimflam—and that it is based on no empirical or even anecdotal evidence. At least with the bail legislation before Christmas the Minister managed to dredge out a couple of mouldy moth-eaten flea-bitten press clippings to say “this is my evidence for doing it” even though we know the bail legislation changed nothing. 
We will vote for this bill to be referred to the Law and Order Committee and I will really enjoy getting the Treasury people in and teasing out of them their exact views on this legislation. I will really enjoy Mr Hide’s submission because of course the regulatory buster will want to relay his great knowledge on how he will cut out waste and red tape yet he lets this one slip slide and grease through the keeper because he has not even read it. No evidence— 
Hon Member 
: It’s stunning. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is a stunning admission by Treasury that there is no anecdotal evidence to back up the claims in this bill. It is absolutely stunning. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He should resign. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I do not know. Maybe the Minister was so secretive about this legislation that he took himself hostage and he did not feel it was appropriate that he read the bill before it came in the House either. Maybe Simon Power thought he had better not release his legislation to himself so he could read it let alone any of his colleagues. Maybe that is what he did. Mr Power stands condemned for not doing his job and for bringing inadequate legislation. This is simply about going to the people on day 16 or whatever it is and saying “We have had 100 days and haven’t I been a smart politician I’ve introduced this legislation.” It is substandard.