Pillay Lynne: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7476] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand and take a call on the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill. In doing so I acknowledge the previous speakers from this side of the Chamber who I believe gave really measured speeches on this bill. In particular I acknowledge my good friend and colleague Moana Mackey who with her background in science has been able to give a little bit more information on the bill. I publicly congratulate Moana Mackey on that contribution. 
Labour members agree with the use of DNA profiling. We accept that it is a tool that will be an advantage in mainstream policing. But in saying that I explain to the Committee that Labour when in Government had already amended legislation to significantly extend DNA testing and its effectiveness. I acknowledge what Carmel Sepuloni said about our concern in terms of the added costs. The added costs under National’s regime come from the proposal that all who are arrested are tested not just those who have been charged. One would ask about this proposal I hope in terms of getting the best bang for the buck. Testing a large number of people who are arrested but not charged means that the tests and all the expense that goes with attaining them under the proposed system would be thrown out. That would result in effectively an added cost or even a waste of money and police resources. 
I also acknowledge that Chris Finlayson the Attorney-General had reported after scrutiny some inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It would have been far better if the Government had supported Charles Chauvel’s amendment which went a long way towards addressing those concerns. It is really unfortunate that that amendment was voted down. I would be very interested to hear from Government members why that happened. I think that supporting his amendment would have gone a long way towards addressing not only Labour’s concerns but also the Attorney-General’s concerns about inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That is very disappointing but it is what must be. 
I also note that the Privacy Commissioner expressed concern that the changes could jeopardise the value of the existing criminal DNA data bank in preventing crime by undermining public trust. As I said if there had been some clarity and some certainty around this bill’s complying with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act putting the mind of the public at ease on those concerns then I believe that the bill would deliver more. It would deliver what was intended rather than the things we have some concerns about. When concerns are present that the bill does not comply with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and when the public is concerned about privacy there is not confidence in the system. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee spent considerable time considering the bill. Of course at this stage I would not go past acknowledging the chairperson Chester Borrows who I can see looks flattered by that acknowledgment. It is a select committee that works well. As well as the staff of the Justice and Electoral Committee I also thank the officials because I know there were some robust discussions about the intent of the bill its consequences and perhaps its unintended consequences. I believe that the participation by officials was very valuable and it certainly gave more clarity to our deliberations. Thank you.