Mackey Moana: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mackey Moana: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12077. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill in the Committee stage. Of course Labour is supporting this bill. I was interested to hear the member Chester Borrows comment that he did not know why Labour was supporting this bill. I tell that member that it is because it is an extension of the legislation the Labour Government passed the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005. I remember that I was at that time a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee which considered the Labour legislation and National Party members were very critical of it. I am very pleased to see that they have seen the error of their ways and have decided to extend the legislation Labour put in place. 
Labour’s legislation attempted to address a very very difficult problem. I recall members of the National Party saying that we should have taken away the right to sue altogether. That view ignored the reality that we were dealing with a range of issues from the very ridiculous to the very serious; we felt that that was the best way to address them. I am pleased that Chester Borrows has confirmed that National has seen the error of its ways. 
I will also address comments that Chester Borrows aimed at me in regard to DNA legislation. Again it just confirms that National has absolutely no understanding of this issue at all—no understanding. Chester Borrows criticised me for raising very valid concerns about the funding of increased powers for DNA use by the police and the funding of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. The point I was making was that when Labour introduced extended powers for DNA use by the police and the criminal justice system we could be assured that Labour would properly fund the police and the Crown research institutes to carry out that work and avoid a miscarriage of justice in the use of this very powerful technology. Yet under this Government we have seen a broken promise on the funding of Crown research institutes—a broken promise. We have seen science funding slashed and we have seen scientists let go. The point I was making which appears to have evaded Mr Borrows was that if the Government will not fund DNA legislation properly it opens up the very real possibility that there will be an enormous miscarriage of justice. 
I remind Mr Borrows of the case that happened right here in New Zealand when a man in Christchurch was arrested for a homicide. He had given a DNA sample because he was the victim of an assault. Fortunately he had a very good alibi for the homicide which was that he was in Christchurch being assaulted at the time of the homicide in Wellington and therefore could not possibly have committed the crime. That case highlights why DNA legislation needs to be backed up by funding. If Mr Borrows does not understand that fact I am concerned about what it means for our police Crown research institutes and the citizens of New Zealand who could be wrongly convicted of crimes they did not commit. 
I also point out to Mr Borrows that it worried me that the Government seemed to think that DNA testing was foolproof. It is not. If the Government thinks DNA testing is foolproof that having DNA evidence means an automatic conviction and that not having a DNA sample means we will not it is a very dangerous situation. It concerns me that the member seems to be so scientifically illiterate that he would attack me for raising those very valid concerns in the Chamber as we extended powers of DNA legislation beyond that which already existed. All a DNA sample at a crime scene proves is that someone’s DNA was at a crime scene. It is then up to the rest of the evidence to prove that the person was there and that what the prosecution says happened actually did happen. It is up to all the other evidence. The flip side is that the fact that there is no DNA evidence at a crime scene does not mean that we cannot get a conviction. I know it has been frustrating for prosecutors around the world that because of what is called the  
CSI  
effect people seem to think that if there is no DNA evidence we cannot possibly get a conviction. 
This goes to show why as my colleagues have been saying this Government seems to have absolutely no understanding of those issues. 
Chester Borrows 
: Which ones? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: All of them I say to Mr Borrows—all of the issues that have been raised tonight. We are pleased that the Government is carrying on a piece of Labour legislation as it has in so many other areas despite saying that Labour’s time in office was the worst 9 years in the entire history of the universe. It seems to have carried on with most of Labour’s legislation and changed hardly anything. The fact is that the comments made by Mr Borrows which inspired me to come to the Chamber and respond show just how out of touch this Government is when it comes to victims of crime.