Cosgrove Clayton: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7155] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I pick up from where my colleague Lianne Dalziel left off in respect of Charles Chauvel’s amendment regarding the review clause that he proposes. I must say that it is a pleasure to be dealing with a bill of substance. I see that Mr Brownlee has joined us and I am sure he will want to take a call after his exertions in managing such wonderful proceedings in the Chamber as we have had tonight. I am sure he will want to take a call on the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill. 
It is with some degree of positivity that I have pleasure in speaking to what I think is a bill of substance as opposed to the last bill debated the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. So I assume that the Government will not take the same shellacking it took from the ACT Party in respect of this bill that it took a few moments ago on the last bill debated when the rug got pulled out. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The marriage is strong. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I doubt that somehow. I suppose I would say to the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power the Minister of Justice that I believe the reason in essence he said he was not supporting this review clause or the reason the department was not supporting it—far be it from the Minister to be led by the nose by the department; I am sure that would not be the case— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: You don’t want to speak from your own experience. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —I ask Mr Brownlee to please not tempt fate—was that the department had proposed a review based on cost-effectiveness. The difference here is that Mr Chauvel’s review deals with some far more important matters of substance than simple cost-effectiveness. In essence the review would test whether the operation of the provisions since the date of commencement should be retained or repealed and if they should be retained whether any further statutory amendments are necessary or desirable. I am sure that even Mr Brownlee with his highly developed level of intelligence—but he will correct me if I am wrong—would note that in essence that asks whether the bill is working. 
There are some very important issues. We heard in previous debates and I will not labour the point that criminals intelligent creatures as they are have engaged in for instance planting DNA. Some complicating factors could lead to corrupt outcomes in respect of DNA so Mr Chauvel’s review is not about dollars and cents it is actually about testing given the new technology and given the vulnerability of the new technology as opposed to fingerprinting which has been debated in earlier times in respect of this bill. It actually seeks to test whether the bill is working and whether it requires amendments to perhaps bolster it. That is about quality. We are absolutely supporting this legislation because despite Mr Power’s comments last night about tools and tool boxes this is a very important tool for police and we support the moves to put this bill in place. 
I also make this appeal to the Minister. I do not see what is wrong with having a review apart from a bit of cost. The select committee officials have to run around do the work and look at it so there is a bit of a cost to that but I would say that the cost is balanced against the cost of not testing whether the legislation is doing what the Government wants whether it is producing the quality outcomes that the Government wants and whether it is working. So I say to Mr Calder that yes there would be a cost for the select committee to look at this. It is not the first time that select committees have been charged with reviewing legislation. For instance a select committee does it after every election and there is actually a cost to that too. I would not have thought that this would be a deal-breaker for the Minister; I would have thought it would be a pretty minor concession and I would have thought that it would give a layer of comfort to the Government—an out clause if you like. Because we are dealing with a new technology the Government may have got it a bit wrong there may have been a loophole or there may be something that we did not think of collectively as a Parliament so this review provides a quality-control mechanism. 
It goes beyond looking at just cost-effectiveness. I make that appeal genuinely to the Minister because with respect I think Mr Chauvel is putting up a high-quality but low-risk proposition. I do not think there is much political cost in saying that and if the Government accepts this amendment I will not make the charge against it that it does not have faith in the legislation or any of that stuff—I would have made that charge in respect of the previous bill debated and I did so—I will actually congratulate the Government and say to the Minister that he has shown a high degree of judgment and leadership because it means he would be willing to concede that Parliament especially when dealing with new technology can often get it wrong or if not wrong can often not come completely to grips with it. 
DNA is an evolving technology. I had the privilege some years ago of going to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to hear a lecture given by—and I forget the gentleman’s name—an eminent professor— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Gerry Brownlee? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No it was not Gerry Brownlee; I would remember that name. It was not the “McDonald’s School of Graduates”; it was the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. We heard an eminent professor who was involved in mapping the genome talk about the strengths— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: It wasn’t Gerry’s was it? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No it was not Gerry’s genome; it was the genome. We heard an eminent professor talk about the strengths and the weaknesses of DNA and I was very impressed. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: There is a demonstration of weak DNA in front of us right now. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Pardon? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Nothing. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Imagine mapping that DNA! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I will. For those who are watching this debate I say that I almost yielded to the member Gerry Brownlee but he said nothing. That is probably the best speech he has made for many years I think. It summed up his whole time in this Parliament. 
On a serious note— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It’s certainly filling out your 5 minutes! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I say to Mr Brownlee that when it comes to filling things out I would not go there if I were him; I am very happy with the size of my suit. I do not think we have reached the technological advance whereby one can lose weight through DNA. 
I will get back to the bill. In all seriousness I say that the professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology lectured us on the strengths and weaknesses of DNA. I think it is a very powerful tool. 
As I said I commend the Minister for what he is doing in respect of this legislation but I think he would show a high degree of judgment and leadership if he simply accepted a review. It has to go beyond just cost-effectiveness. It would have been great to know whether the dollars and cents were adding up in respect of the last bill debated. If the Minister said that he had done a cost-effectiveness review in respect of the last bill debated—well no we would not have wanted that in respect of that bill because we could predict the outcome of that review. But this is still a relatively new and evolving technology and this technology has strengths and weaknesses. It is not as straightforward as simply fingerprinting and Mr Chauvel has simply sought to say that we should look at it in 5 years’ time to see whether we need to amend it and see whether the provisions that this Parliament is supporting—I assume universally—are working well or whether we can improve it. 
I say to Mr Calder who wrung his hands about the cost of the select committee inquiry that I think this would be a high-quality use of a select committee and a high-quality inquiry. At its very essence it might provide new ideas to build on this legislation. By that stage in 5 years or perhaps in 5 months we will know how this technology will evolve. It may be that from that inquiry flows new legislation for the Government of the day that will have an even greater impact on criminal elements and a greater positive impact for victims. If the Minister is not going to support the amendment that is fair enough. But surely he has a better argument than saying as the Ministry of Justice leads him by the nose that he will not support this amendment because the ministry will have a review that says whether it is cost-effective. We are talking about quality not dollars. We are asking whether it works not about dollars. We are asking whether it meets its aims and objectives not whether it is meeting the Budget line item projection that this Government has set for it. 
I invite the Minister to respond now if he wants to. It would be a pleasure if he did. I invite Mr Brownlee—who obviously has made some sterling contributions to this debate being an expert on things scientific—to rise and answer for the Minister. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Sure to rise! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Sure to rise yes. He may want to make a contribution to this debate. I think that deep down in places Mr Brownlee does not want to talk about he may well support the proposition I am putting up. It is worth quality-controlling the legislation. The Government will lose nothing politically and no one will have a go at it for saying that it will have a look at this legislation in 5 years because it is very very important. We think of David Dougherty. DNA evidence cleared that man. He was innocent. We think of Arthur Allan Thomas. It was historical technology but I ask members to think of the consequences around that case. I say in all seriousness to the Government that it would show a high degree of leadership if it accepted this very simple but high-quality proposition.