Sepuloni Carmel: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Sepuloni Carmel: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1275] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 It is important for me to state from the outset that Labour will support the referral of the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill to a select committee but not without reservations. The most immediate reservation that comes to mind is the rushed manner in which this bill is being pushed through by the National Government. As a new MP I came into this House with a somewhat idealised expectation of how legislation might be conceptualised developed and implemented but that idealised expectation has been knocked for six in the last 2 weeks of 2008 and this first week of 2009. 
A complete disregard for adequate and appropriate levels of consultation has been demonstrated through the National Government’s farcical treatment of proposed legislation and scant regard for due process. When members of Parliament and the general public are not given the opportunity to carefully consider and consult over proposed legislation what is the Government saying to New Zealand? Is it saying that the law does not require careful consideration? Is it undermining the value of the broader parliamentary and public voice? Is it placing personal and political agendas ahead of best practice? 
If there was a rational explanation for why this particular bill needs to be rushed through so quickly then I might understand. However as many of my colleagues have already stated over the course of the past 3 days this is all happening because the National Government has allowed its grand 100-day action plan to take priority over carefully considered legislation and fair process. 
With the limited time we have had to consider this bill which we saw for the first time just prior to the start of the first reading debate 2 days ago what can we say about it? Labour had already amended legislation to significantly extend DNA testing so obviously Labour agrees that DNA profiling is an essential investigative tool in mainstream policing. The way the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act currently stands reminds us that Labour took DNA testing technology seriously and acted responsibly as the former Government to legislate accordingly. This also demonstrates that the current Government is again choosing to window dress rather than develop in consultation robust and effective legislation—and all of this for the purpose of being seen at least on the surface level to be addressing some of the fears that New Zealanders have with regard to law and order. But there is no depth to what it is doing. 
Labour is not opposed to further extension of DNA testing but it is unclear whether this legislation will have a significant impact on serious crime considering the changes that Labour made when in Government. Given the opposing positions of the Ministry of Justice and Treasury with regard to this bill’s regulatory impact statement we have very genuine and valid concerns. Treasury has clearly stated that it views the regulatory impact statement 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 evidence (anecdotal and empirical) to support these”. So the first problem is that there is no evidence. Given the fact that the National Government has removed the research and development tax credit we are not surprised that it does not feel there needs to be an evidence base to the legislation it tries to push through. 
The next reason Treasury gives for the legislation being inadequate is the “limited analysis of the impacts of the options. The analysis of costs is partial e.g. only aggregate first year costs are estimated and capital costs are excluded and there is no assessment of risks such as risks related to implementation and how these will be mitigated”. So the second problem is that no one knows the costs involved or the risks with regard to what the Government is trying to push through. Despite the fact that we are in the middle of a recession and that National members have said the Government will cut bureaucracy and red tape and make sure it looks after taxpayers’ money it will push through legislation even though taxpayers are paying for it and the Government does not know how much it will cost. 
The next reason Treasury gives for the legislation being inadequate is that “the RIS does not report on the outcome of consultation and how any issues raised have been addressed.” So the third problem is that there has been no consultation. How can we discuss any issues when none has been raised because there has been no consultation? Going back to what I said earlier we know that this legislation will go to the select committee and that we will have 6 months to discuss it so there is absolutely no reason why the bill needed to be pushed through in urgency. 
I have no doubt that the select committee and the public will be vigilant in pulling this bill apart and putting it back together to create rational well-thought-out legislation—basically in complete contrast to its current form. What will the end result look like? Probably it will be only slightly modified compared with the version that currently stands. Will it be more effective than the current legislation? We will not know until the task is complete but possibly not. In that case the select committee will have spent hours and thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money on effectively doing nothing if the legislation is no more effective than what we currently have. Thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money would have been spent on discussing and consulting on legislation that will effectively do nothing. So much for cutting the red tape and bureaucracy! 
Labour will support this legislation. There is a possibility that the amended legislation will go slightly further than what we currently have but there is no proof of that because as Treasury has said there is no evidence to suggest that it will. When we look at the current legislation and what Labour put into place we can see that burglary suspects can already be compelled to provide a DNA sample. That is because of the changes that Labour pushed through including to the circumstances in which a crime scene sample is matched with a known offender’s DNA profile held on a police data bank. 
Prior to that crime scene samples could not be used in evidence unless a fresh DNA sample was taken which the alleged offender could refuse to give. That is one of the points that Labour pushed through with the amending legislation in 2003. 
The next point is that the offences for which someone may be compelled to give a sample have been significantly extended to cover crimes punishable by at least a 7-year jail sentence such as motor vehicle conversion some receiving stolen goods offences or any attempt or conspiracy to commit such crimes. 
The next point with regard to what Labour has already done is that DNA samples can be obtained by compulsion from prison inmates who have been convicted of serious offences prior to the commencement of the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995. 
The next point with regard to what Labour has already done is that the police no longer need a court order to obtain a sample from a convicted person; however a judicial hearing can be requested by a person who believes that he or she is not liable to provide such a sample. 
The next point with regard to what Labour has already done is that mouth swabs which are cheaper less invasive and just as accurate as blood samples can now be given as an alternative. 
The issue arising is that this is a substandard bill that National is proposing and that effectively we may spend 6 months wasting taxpayers’ money while working on the bill to come up with something that is very little different from what we already have in place.