Bridges Simon: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Bridges Simon: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7065] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 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.