Bridges Simon: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Bridges Simon: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7501] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I have spoken in both the first and the second readings so I will not take all of my allocated time. But I will talk about the— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Oh go on. Don’t let us down. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I could but I will not. I will talk about just three things. I will talk about the technology involved and some of the advances there. I will speak about the increase in the number of rightful convictions and the decrease in the number of wrongful ones that this bill will bring which is something that I see as being very important. Finally I will note something that Chester Borrows said. 
I have said at every stage of this bill that the technological increases and advances in this area are quite amazing. We have gone from the days not a very long time ago when large blobs of DNA were required to get a sample to the situation where a mere trace of DNA is all that is required. Often it is something not even visible to the human eye. The power of the technology has been amazing. Moana Mackey who knows a lot about this may be able to correct me but I do not believe we are yet at the stage where a mere breath is enough. We would still need physical contact. 
We have not gone down a much more controversial road either. Members will remember the Court of Appeal case regarding David Bain where there were issues to do with whether voice recognition and whether we could recognise what someone had said in a phone call could be admissible. It was not admissible in the Bain case. The inquiry went to whether there were words or merely heavy breathing. 
We could not say for example in a court case whether a person talking on the phone was David or Davina Hughes particularly if he or she was using a wrong name as Labour members sometimes do. We have powerful technology but we are not yet at the point where breath can be included. Certainly voice recognition is very controversial so we will not be able to tell which Labour members were making certain phone calls at certain times. 
Secondly I say that the number of rightful convictions will increase as a result of this bill. I think that is absolutely correct. It will also see innocent people vindicated as we saw with David Dougherty. 
I say to the Green member that I take seriously the point she makes about Maori and the justice system. I think that the overrepresentation of Maori in our justice system is of concern and I believe that it is also of concern to the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power. But I disagree with the Green member in relation to her concerns with this bill which I think will be a friend not a foe. It is simply a factual position to say that DNA sampling will see people rightfully convicted or rightfully acquitted. Therefore it is not racially biased in any way; I do not think that Maori in this country should have anything to fear. 
Finally I agree with something Chester Borrows said yesterday in a fine contribution. When we look at the whole arsenal of laws in the law and order area this bill is one of the finest and it is more likely to create fewer victims than any of the other bills passed to date. Thank you.