Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) Link to this
I move, That the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill be now read a third time. This bill will significantly improve the regulation of the private security industry. The private security industry is a very diverse and very important industry, which protects New Zealanders and their property around the clock. However, it is currently regulated by an Act that is widely acknowledged by members of the industry to be in need of updating. A lot has changed since the 1974 Act and the bill addresses those changes.
The overriding purpose of the bill is to prevent harm by ensuring that security businesses and personnel are suitable and do not behave in ways that are contrary to the public interest. Security personnel play an important role in protecting our safety and property, and members of the public need to be assured that the people in whom they place their trust—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.
Just before the dinner break, I was letting the House know that we are in the third reading of the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. I was talking about the importance of passing this bill, because it has been in the proposal area for 7 years. It is great that this Government has been able to progress it. I understand that it has widespread support from across the House.
The public needs to be assured that security personnel have the skills and knowledge to do the job safely and competently. One of the key changes introduced in this bill makes it possible to impose training requirements. As I mentioned in the second reading, this Government intends to make regulations requiring crowd controllers, property guards, and personal guards to be trained. Another key change in the bill extends the licensing regime to include security personnel who are responsible for protecting people or, in a general sense, keeping order. This addresses a significant gap in the current regime and will be important for the safety and success of major events such as the Rugby World Cup, which is a little under 12 months away.
The bill establishes two new bodies, the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority and a dedicated enforcement body called the complaints, investigation, and prosecution unit. The two bodies will work together to improve overall compliance. The authority will be responsible for licensing and discipline, and the unit will investigate and prosecute offences against the Act.
The bill also aims to improve compliance and deter unlicensed operators by updating offences and increasing penalties.
Another significant change introduced by the bill is the change to the licensing regime from an annual process to a 5-yearly cycle. This will apply to both licences and certificates of approval. Instead of having to make a full application each year to renew a licence or certificate, there will be a much simpler process. Licence holders will have to provide annual returns to the licencing authority and advise the authority of any changes, for example, if they have been convicted of a relevant offence in that time or if their business address has changed. Certificate holders will also have to advise the authority of certain changes as they occur.
The Justice and Electoral Committee, led by Chester Borrows, who does a fantastic job with that committee, recommended several changes to ensure the bill meets its objectives. Most of the changes are technical in nature to clarify aspects of the bill and to make it operate as intended. All of those changes are now reflected in the bill.
I want to comment about the most significant change in the bill since it was introduced and how that relates to the regulation of private investigators. Private investigators, as members know, perform a valuable role investigating fraud and other criminal offending, but the current prohibition on taking or using photographs or audio recordings without the subject’s written consent can make it difficult for private investigators to do their work. That restriction was in clause 66 of the bill introduced to the House. The select committee recommended replacing clause 66 with a requirement to make regulations prescribing a code of conduct for private investigators. The bill requires the code of conduct to cover the surveillance of individuals by private investigators.
In conclusion, I am pleased that the bill has reached its third reading this evening. It achieves reform that is proportionate to the risks, and, overall, it is cost-effective. It will benefit the many members of the private security industry who already meet the high standards we expect and in whom the public trusts every day.
The bill was very well received by the Security Association conference, which I addressed today, and it is pleased that the legislation has finally been modernised. I commend this bill to the House.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this
It is always a pleasure to follow the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon Nathan Guy, in this House. That is something I tend to be doing quite a lot lately. I understand that the Minister dreams about making speeches in Parliament; in fact, he has been known to wake up and find that he actually is, because he sets the House alight when he comes down here and speaks to us!
I am very happy to take this call on the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. Just to—
Chris TremainWas it? Oh, it was meant in good humour.
There are three main changes to the current Private Investigators and Security Guards Act contained in this bill. It is a good bill, which was introduced by my colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove during the tenure of the previous Labour Government. It is another of the many things we did to give the new Government an easy ride when it first came in. It had all this legislation that the previous Labour Government had introduced for it to pass and to make it look good, but all the hard work was done before National took office.
I have to do the maths; I would have been 25.
The bill does three main things. It introduces licensing requirements, including police checks for criminal convictions, to an extended range of people carrying out security-related activities, including crowd controllers, bouncers, bodyguards, private security staff, and those guarding people in legal custody. I will talk a little bit more about some of those in a minute.
Private security staff will be required for the first time in New Zealand to undertake training if their job is guarding property, guarding persons, or keeping order amongst groups of people. Essentially, training will be required if the nature of the work is such that there is a significant risk of physical violence occurring. The details of the training will be made explicit via an Order in Council. As the Minister just pointed out, a dedicated enforcement body, the complaints, investigation, and prosecution unit, will be created to ensure compliance with the new legislation, and there will be heavier penalties for offending.
I would like to run through briefly who will be covered by this legislation. Security consultants will be covered by it. That means anybody who sells or attempts to sell a device of any kind such as security cameras, burglar alarms, and so forth. Anybody who wishes to advise the owner or occupier of a premise on the desirability of having any such equipment installed on their premise will be covered.
The bill covers those working in secure document destruction. We had an interesting debate on that in the Committee stage. My friend Simon Bridges pointed out that secure document destruction could prevent material getting into the hands of Nicky Hager if it were done by appropriately licenced and trained people, except, as I pointed out in the Committee stage, if Mr English were not covered by this legislation, which he is not, then there are no guarantees that those documents would not still have found their way into Mr Hager’s hands somehow. I understand that the police are still continuing to try to find out what happened there. Obviously, Mr English is very, very good at covering his tracks.
The bill covers property guards, who look after not only commercial premises but also private premises and so forth. I raised a question about the people who monitor security cameras. I asked particularly about whether the bill would cover the likes of community patrols, which assist the police in monitoring security cameras. I did not get an answer during the Committee stage of the debate, unfortunately.
The bill also covers crowd controllers. I thought the definition of a crowd controller was quite interesting. It includes anybody who is in the business of screening entry into a place, keeping order in a place, or removing a person from a place. I wondered whether Mr Brownlee might be covered by the legislation, because I understand that is the role he performs at National Party conferences. He screens entry into the conferences, keeps order in the conferences, and he removes people from the conferences. When people cause a disturbance he throws them down the stairs. I wondered whether this definition would cover the likes of Mr Brownlee, given his history as a crowd controller at National Party conferences.
The bill covers personal security guards, who are people involved in the guarding of a specific person or persons.
Hon Ruth DysonThat could well be Mr Brownlee, as well, although I do not know exactly who he was guarding.
Those people are all covered by this legislation, which introduces a licensing regime and a training regime for them. I think that we would all agree in this House—and I suspect that we will all agree and all vote in favour of this very good legislation, which was introduced by the previous Labour Government—that ensuring that the people who work in those types of jobs are appropriately trained, qualified, and registered is a very worthwhile thing to do. That would have been one of the motivations behind the previous Labour Government introducing this legislation.
I will recap a little bit about why it is important that we revisit this legislation. The current Private Investigators and Security Guards Act 1974 is outdated. It does not reflect the changing role and expectations of the security industry in New Zealand today. Technology has changed hugely in that period of time. It is longer than I have been around for, I am afraid to say—
Shane ArdernThere were a few; there were one or two. Things have changed dramatically since then. The advent of modern technology, particularly digital technology, has changed the role of many of those things. I imagine that private security cameras monitored remotely would not have been very common in 1974, but in these days, they are quite common.
It was all black and white in those days—well, that is right. In fact, it was in the 1980s that I got my first black and white television. We used to watch The Dukes of Hazzard back on the old black and white TV.
Things have moved on since 1974. It is time that the law is updated. Private security personnel perform a very valuable and responsible role in the community, but risks are associated with the type of work that they do. In particular, where somebody is put in a situation where they could become violent, we want to make sure that private security personnel are appropriately trained for that situation. Standards of practice and conduct vary widely at the moment amongst private security businesses and their staff. This poses risks to their clients, the public, and, of course, to the security personnel themselves. Those risks include risk to physical safety and the security of property. In the case of private investigators, there are big risks to privacy. Clearly this bill addresses that matter, and that is a good thing. Improvements are needed to ensure that security staff who are not currently required to be licensed are covered.
With regard to bouncers, I mentioned before the example of Mr Brownlee. He would not be covered by the existing law, and I am not sure whether he will be covered by this law, either. But perhaps he should be, given the very valuable role he performs as a front-line bouncer at National Party conferences. The current Act does not require the mandatory training of security staff, and I think that Mr Brownlee could probably use training in a number of other areas as well as in his role as the National Party’s bouncer.
He could possibly use it in his role as Leader of the House, and then he would not have to extend the deadline for pieces of legislation to be enacted. But that is an issue for next week; I am sure that we will come back to that again next week.
To come back to the issue at hand, I say that without proper training, staff could be exposed to potentially violent situations. That is something they need to be aware of. It is almost unavoidable for those working in the security industry, particularly for those working as bouncers in the hospitality industry. I think is very important to make sure they are trained and know how to deal with that appropriately. Better enforcement and heavier penalties are needed to deter offending, including the problem of businesses and staff operating in the industry without being licensed when they should be. This bill introduces new penalties, new fines, and so forth. I think that is a very valuable thing.
Overall, I think this is a good bill. As I said, it was introduced by the previous Labour Government. It was one of the many pieces of legislation that was introduced by the previous Labour Government to make this Government look good. I commend the Justice and Electoral Committee, which was involved in hearing the submissions on the legislation. I particularly compliment the chair of the select committee, Mr Chester Borrows. It is always a pleasure when I have the opportunity to serve on that select committee. Overall, this is a good bill, and I commend it to the House.
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this
I rise to speak to yet another sterling piece of legislation, the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. It had its germ, as we have just heard, within the National Party and it was polished by a National Government at the top of its game. It was filtered through the Justice and Electoral Committee and has gathered wide support from across the House. This legislation needs to deal with changes made in technology since the parent legislation was introduced, and it takes account of the wide range of purposes that private security personnel and private investigators work on today. It is also interesting to note that, for the first time, security guards will be required to undergo training, and they will not just undergo training but also be required to display competency. The reason for that is that people can undergo training by way of mantra, they can tick boxes, and it could be said that they know stuff, but we need to know that they can display the competencies. A lot of the people involved in the security industry come from similar backgrounds within other agencies—for instance, within the armed forces, the police, and customs. Those people will have the technical difference of being able to say that they display a competency, rather than having to undergo training. It means that they will not need to go through and do the tick box thing. They can display the competency and will not have to waste time doing the training.
Why that is important is that more and more, right across our society, we are expecting people not from Government agencies to perform tasks that have traditionally been done by Government agencies. For instance, there is not a single piece of core police work these days that is not done at some place in our country by a private security company. As has been previously mentioned, there was quite a bit of debate about the ability of private security guards and private investigators to take photographs and take video and audio recordings, because previously they had not been able to do that. If they were confined merely to watching people—gathering evidence for journalists and mudslingers—then maybe it could have been OK to leave the law where it was, because members in this House, for instance, have been the subject of that sort of abuse.
However, I know that a number of private investigators are used in the investigation of crime. Some of it is serious crime. Some of it is crime that the police do not have the resources to be able to investigate in terms of time and personnel, depending on where in the country the crime needs to be investigated, or on what the current crime trends are at that time. We see a large number of fraud investigations being carried out by private investigators, and private investigators going ahead and investigating a number of missing person - type offences and incidents. We have the ridiculous situation under the current legislation where parents could give a photograph to a private investigator to go and look for their missing child, who was maybe a young teenager and had run away from home, yet the private investigator could not show that photograph to anybody else to ask whether that person had seen the child. If the private investigator thought that he or she had seen the child, the private investigator could not take a photograph of the child in a street situation or without the child’s consent, in order to go back to the parents to confirm identification.
The changes to the powers of private security personnel and private investigators is timely, especially in view of the Rugby World Cup coming up next year, as we have heard from the Associate Minister of Justice. The bill enjoys wide support from across the House, and I commend it to the House.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this
I endorse the comments from the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, Chester Borrows, and I am happy to say again that I respect the way in which he chairs that committee. It has a lot of work, and he does that task very effectively. I think there was a slip of the tongue when he said that the genesis of this bill, the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill, was with National. Actually, that was not correct. The bill was introduced by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove during the term of the previous Labour Government; he was the Minister in charge of the bill.
I am happy to record, as did the previous Labour speaker, that Labour will be supporting this bill. The bill updates the legislation covering private security personnel and private investigators. That is important. There have been changes since the original private security legislation of the 1970s. A lot more quasi-police functions are now conducted by private security agents. In the 1970s the people who provided security at public sporting events, for example, were the police. These days the police generally are not the main providers of security services at big public functions, be they sporting matches or cultural events. It is generally contracted out to private security people, and there is a need for legislation to catch up with that reality.
The only area where I disagree with the Government in respect of this bill is the granting of the right for security personnel to take photographs and to conduct other surveillance operations. Everyone on both sides of the House agrees that it is somewhat nonsensical at the moment that a private person can take a photograph in circumstances that under the status quo of the existing legislation a private security person cannot. That seems a nonsense, and it should be fixed. But the more fundamental problem we have is that there is a bit of a gap in the New Zealand law at the moment.
We have controls on how State agencies conduct surveillance operations, including taking photographs of people, yet we do not have constraints on non-State agencies. We have powers in favour of the police being able to go about the things they need to do when investigating crimes. But there are constraints on the police. In certain situations they have to get warrants before they can conduct search and surveillance operations. We have no such constraints in respect of non-State agency search and surveillance. The Law Commission has identified this as a gap in the New Zealand law.
When the Law Commission was involved in the submissions process or in the development—I am not sure which—of the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill it stated that we ought not to confer on private investigators the right to take photographs until we have tidied up the underlying law relating to photographs, surveillance, and searches by non-State agencies. It is a nonsense that the State agencies that we confer these special powers on face some controls at law that are not applied to non-State agencies.
In an earlier debate I gave the example of the Minister of Finance, the Hon Bill English, suffering the intrusion of people on the street taking photographs of the inside of his children’s bedrooms. There were problems in the underlying dispute that I do not think Bill English was free from fault in, but, in my view, Bill English and his family ought not to have suffered the intrusion of people on the street taking photographs of the inside of the children’s bedrooms. That is an infringement of his civil liberties that is not justified.
In my time as a Minister I suffered a similar action. In my case it was carried out by private investigators who were stupid enough to out themselves on TV. There is no doubt that those private investigators were being paid by the Exclusive Brethren. They were following and investigating me, Michael Cullen, and David Benson-Pope, as well as, probably, Peter Davis and the Prime Minister. This was admitted by a private investigator who forgot the word “private” and did a public interview, which was a silly acknowledgment. However, it did show there are intrusions into the civil liberties of me, every other member of Parliament, and every member of the public in New Zealand and that they are not properly controlled by our current laws.
Private investigators, as a general rule, should have no greater power than any other private individual. They should have the same powers as private individuals, and I agree it is a nonsense that they cannot take photos, but they should not have any more powers than private individuals have. I agreed with the logic that was used by the Law Commission when it recommended that we stick with the status quo in respect of private investigators not being able to take photographs and do other surveillance work until we properly control search and surveillance by non-State agencies.
The problem that we risk creating with this legislation is that when the Law Commission comes up with its final recommendations as to the appropriate controls on search and surveillance by non-governmental agencies—that is, by private people and by private investigators—private investigators will stick up their hands and say: “We’re special. We need more rights than the general public.”, or they will come along and say: “The general public needs these rights too.” I disagree with that.
I do not think it was right that anyone, a private investigator or someone out on the street, can use a camera to take photos from a distance. These are new issues that come to us as a consequence of new technologies. Those new technologies include not just cameras that are powerful from a distance but directional microphones, tracking devices that can be put on cars, and heat detection equipment that shows where people are. New technologies allow significant intrusions into the private lives of people, and they ought not to be freely able to be used by busybodies.
I think it is an absolute outrage that the privacy of Bill English and his children was infringed by the taking of photographs, from the public street, through his children’s bedroom windows. That is something that is properly controlled to protect the civil liberties of all of us so we can live private lives and not have them intruded upon unduly. Legislation will eventually come to this House, at the recommendation of the Minister of Justice and the Law Commission, to put some controls against inappropriate intrusions into our private lives. But private investigators, because we are giving them these powers, in the meantime, in this legislation, will come along and say: “We’re special. Don’t include us.” That is the point of principle that I think is wrong in this version of the bill.
The original bill, which was referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee, was a bill that stuck with the status quo and put up with the nonsensical part of the law that says private investigators cannot take photographs and do surveillance without the consent of the occupant of the property. We all agree that that is imperfect legislation, but it is imperfect legislation that we have had for 36 years. Another couple of years of that imperfection would not have done much harm, but it would have sent the signal that we do not think private investigators should have any more powers than private people, because they are effectively just agents of private people.
If we think about what private investigators do, we realise that they stand in the shoes of the people who employ them. They are doing things on behalf of private people, and they should not have any more powers than private people have if they do those things themselves. If we need any more powers than that to investigate a crime, it should be done through the police. Then there are the constraints around getting a warrant, convincing a judge that it is the appropriate thing to do, the evidential requirements that are enforced by the courts as to the appropriate use of police powers, and, indeed, the political accountability of the Minister of Police if the police overstep the mark.
None of those constraints is in play in respect of private investigators. That is why private investigators ought not to have more powers than ordinary people, and that is why, in my opinion, we are creating a rod for our own backs in respect of that provision. Having said that, it is good legislation overall. I hope that in this debate we have appropriately highlighted the risk we create in respect of the non-governmental search and surveillance powers, and that in the future we tidy that up for everyone, including private investigators. Thank you.
KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this
The Green Party will support the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill, but we are concerned about the expansion in the number of people who are private investigators or security people. I think a figure was thrown around in one of the earlier debates of about 18,000 people working in this area. It has been a growth area in New Zealand society over recent years, and in general it produces nothing in terms of the productive economy of our country. More and more of our resources are being diverted into the area.
The question I start with is why in this modern society we need so many private eyes, security guards, property guards, personal guards, crowd-control people, security consultants, people who secure areas and check security cameras, and people who destroy documents. The list goes on and on. I remember when I was growing up a few years ago that just about the only security people I came across were a couple of people, who did not have uniforms on, at the doors of the dances I went to. In that time there were one or two other people, who were private investigators, whom we did not see and whose main job was to spy on people to see who was committing adultery so that one of the partners in a marriage could use the information in a divorce suit.
I remember that I used to go down regularly to Lancaster Park to watch the rugby games, and I cannot remember seeing any security guards in uniforms there, although there might have been a couple of police around just to tell people which direction to go in. It was a different society altogether, and now we are thinking about the Rugby World Cup next year, for which there will be a whole array of people with uniforms on to protect the Rugby World Cup and all the people going into the games. It seems totally out of proportion. When Sir Roger Douglas started in Parliament here a few years ago—and that was a few years ago, was it not—I do not think there were any security guards in Parliament to speak of. Apparently there were a couple of people stationed at the doors to welcome people coming in. They did not see people as any threat; they said “Come on, come in.” There was no security around the building to speak of.
There are two concepts that we seem to have lost sight of in all this, and one of those is trust. In those past days, people basically trusted each other and they did not think we needed a whole lot of people running around in uniforms to protect some people against other people. The second concept we seem to have lost sight of is of risk. We are much less likely to take risks and to risk something going wrong. In the past, when there were not any security guards in crowds, at rugby games, or wherever, there was occasionally a bit of mayhem, and there might not have been people on hand to stop it immediately, but it was a much better society because we took that risk. We were not scared that if something went wrong or someone got hurt that it would be in the papers the next day, and that someone would have to be responsible and someone would have to be blamed. We had more of a concept of risk and an understanding that in society we have to take some risks.
Our national hero, Sir Edmund Hillary, is a person whose life was built on risk, yet we seem to have forgotten about it as an important factor in society. In those days, as was pointed out by a previous speaker, most of the control was done by a few people in police uniforms. Now we have a lot more people who are not in police uniforms. Is that a move to greater efficiency? I think it was much more efficient when we had a few people who were fully trained and respected because they had police powers.
I will go into the issue of clause 66, which has been omitted from the bill. The Greens and Labour, as members know, have opposed the elimination of clause 66. We want to continue the prohibition on private investigators taking photos, videos, and audio recordings of people—all of which clause 66 prohibited. There is even more reason to do that now, because of the march forward of technology. We are not in the same situation as we were in the days of the earlier legislation, when only still photographs were used. Now videos are used, and more and more the videos are electronic videos, rather than the old videotapes. Those devices are much cheaper and much more intrusive. They are often much smaller, and they can be very covert, as we saw in the recent case over the last week surrounding Stephen Wilce.
As a result of a 60 Minutes documentary, Stephen Wilce, who was the head of the Defence Technology Agency, appears to have not been entirely truthful about his background. That issue started off when TV3 interviewed him with a covert camera, which he did not know was present. The thing about those cameras is that they are fairly easy to run continuously. If they are put in an office, house, or wherever it might be, then they keep going and going, and they can be accessed remotely. The person running the show does not need to be in the vicinity, just as our traffic cameras, which of course perform a good purpose, are accessed remotely in a control room some distance from the particular intersections at which the cameras are directed. It is also easier because of the electronic time scanning in videotapes today to focus back and forth on whatever we want very quickly. A particularly interesting and worrying development is the spread of facial recognition systems, through which we can apply facial characteristics to a whole set of videotapes to find a particular person in a very quick space of time. That means it is much easier for private eyes to track people around a city, if they have cameras in place.
With audio interceptions, the technology has marched on as well. All the things I mentioned for video technology apply to audio interceptions as well. Audio interception devices are small. They can be covert and unknown to the person who is under surveillance. They can be permanently in place, accessed remotely, and can have directional microphones attached, which means they can be quite a bit further away from their target. Voice recognition systems are available, and automatic transcription systems can also be used for transcribing the voice intercepts, and I think the Hansard Officeof this Parliament uses that technology as well.
In terms of what private investigators are trying to do, that reliance on technology has a big downside. Those investigators who have been contracted by outsourcing Government departments, such as Momentum Consulting Group in the Stephen Wilce case, might have been relying too much on technology. It might have googled the name “Stephen Wilce” to see whether he came up on Google rather than talking to the people he had worked with over the years, by which I mean the seven different employers whom those recruiters do not seem to have had a chat to.
One of the problems with any electronic interception system, be it audio or video, is that if someone gets round behind the system and changes something, everyone accepts that the person is OK, because the background part of the system has been falsified. There are also problems with private investigators being outsourced by State agencies such as Solid Energy, which outsourced private investigation through Thompson and Clark Investigations, and infiltrated the Save Happy Valley Coalition, an environmental group that was trying to protect a pristine area on the West Coast. That was very destructive to that organisation and very unethical. That is the problem when we allow private agencies to go beyond the legal and moral constraints that operate for the State agencies that report to the Government and this Parliament, and which we can keep an eye on.
I think it is good that this bill exercises, in general, a lot of control over the field of private investigators and security people, but we have to be wary about going too far down the track of more security people. Thank you.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēna tātou katoa, i tēnei pō. Thanks for the opportunity to take just a short call, really, from the Māori Party perspective. As other speakers have said, the Privacy Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill is important, and it amends outdated legislation from 1974. From our perspective it is more than just getting up to date; the key to the bill is to ensure that security workers are trustworthy, which was a point made by my colleague Mr Locke. They must also have the skills and training to do their jobs well. Both of those are important things. This bill has immediate relevance to security guards, bouncers, doormen, and security technicians, who will now have to hold licences and certificates of approval, with the threat of being penalised by fines of up to $60,000 for breaches.
When I got wind of this bill I was approached by a person who leads a large security firm in Rotorua. He had, basically, two concerns. Firstly, he did not mind the whole notion about some sort of accreditation, but he mentioned—I say for the purposes of the Minister—that the turnover of the applications was a little bit slow. That was a problem for him, because when he called on all members of his huge security firm, and had to pull in all of his workers from Taupō, Tokoroa, and around Rotorua—they were needed around Christmas time, when all the big festivals were on, the rock festivals, the Ragamuffin festival, big rugby games, and so on and so forth—the turn-round, he said, was a little bit slow. I just mention that in passing.
Secondly, if he had to take on staff for a short period of time—maybe for a one-off job—those people still had to pay a fee and to go through the process of getting accreditation when they might have been going to work only once, or possibly twice, over a period of a year. Therefore, it was almost a waste of time. In fact, I think he mentioned that his company had to pay the fees, or that he was willing to take up the costs, to assist his workers’ come-on, or else it was a waste of time for them even to join; the pay they would get would basically go out the door from having to pay the fees to get accredited. I just leave those issues for the Minister, who hopefully is listening, to consider.
A key issue within the bill appears to have created the most interest, and that is the question of clause 66—whether to delete it. That clause restricts private investigators or their employees from taking photographs or making recordings without the subject’s written consent. The Māori Party was certainly sensitive to the potential risk of abuse and unfair conduct by private investigators if the restrictions were removed, but we noted also the advice of the Law Commission that section 52 of the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act currently provides protection for individuals from unauthorised surveillance, so in a sense that Act deals with that issue.
We are also interested in the predominant theme of the majority of submissions, which called for a private investigator to have a code of conduct, and for a code of ethics to be established, as well. We want to ensure that appropriate standards of conduct are set and maintained, and that the power of security staff is appropriately balanced to ensure the rights and safety of the public.
To know exactly what it means on the ground, I have heard some feedback from security doormen at the famous—or infamous—Grumpy Mole Saloon in Rotorua, who have to deal with both the best and the worst of people in the Waiariki electorate. These doormen say they already undergo training and are registered by getting New Zealand Qualifications Authority qualifications. As part of the checking process, referees will be asked to describe what sorts of persons these people are, and the last thing we want is security personnel who want to give as good as they get when dealing with disorderly and drunk people. That probably would not be the best situation. They also have a process of mentoring, inasmuch as new employees are teamed up with more experienced doormen before they gain qualifications. That is important. Dealing with drunks is difficult at the best of times, but security guys end up, as we know, often being the subject of spitting, kicks, and objects being thrown at them, and enduring all that supposedly in the line of duty. As a result of this bill, workers will have to provide to the authority annual returns of relevant information, such as a recent conviction, and they will have to wear an authorised badge at all times while working, which at least shows their accreditation in a physical sense.
We are most interested to see there is also a code of conduct in place to ensure that appropriate attitudes, such as cultural competency—the ability to work across cultures—are maintained throughout every aspect of the industry’s work. We are obviously supporting this bill’s third reading, and we appreciate the work that has been done by the Minister.
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) Link to this
A lot has changed in the world since 1974. The world has become a more complex place. Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins, Aaron Gilmore, Nikki Kaye, and Simon Bridges entered the world, and that is not the start of it. But in addition to all of that sort of light and wholesome goodness, the world has become more complex. I want to talk briefly about, I suppose, the way things have changed and what the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill reflects in that respect. We see in the purpose clause, or the reasons for this bill, some of the changes in our values and the way we think about things. The new bill prevents unsuitable people from working in private security. It ensures that security personnel and private investigators can be required to undertake training. It prescribes codes of conduct. It beefs up or ensures there are appropriate penalties for breaches. So we have seen some changes here and a view that bouncers, security personnel of all shapes and sizes, are not performing just a private role, as we probably thought they were in the early 1970s, but that there is a public interest in, or a public aspect to, what they are doing. So they need to be regulated and trained, and we need codes of conduct. I suggest there has been a real change in the way we view rights, personal autonomy, and the privacy of individuals.
I have Chester Borrows sitting near me and I do not want to cast aspersions on his age, but for argument’s sake let me ask how long the member was a police officer. [Interruption] When he was first a police officer—and I have heard this from, shall we say, more senior officers—the way that a breach of the peace or something was sorted out was with a good hard thump. That is the truth of the matter. They would implement a bit of rough justice and the lad, or whoever it was, who had done the bad thing would be on his way. We certainly do not condone that sort of behaviour now, because, as I say, rights of individuals have increased. I happen to think that is a good thing by and large, and personal autonomy and our sense of our privacy have been greatly enhanced.
Again, we see that not just with police officers but with bouncers. Interestingly, I think it was Breakfast television—which Jacinda Ardern and I will be glad to appear on tomorrow morning—that had the head of the New Zealand Security Association—
Hon Maurice WilliamsonTelevision One, 7.20. It is the highlight of the week for Jacinda Ardern’s grandmother, but that is another story; and of my mother, by the way. I am getting off track. The point of the story is that on television this morning they had the head of the Security Association. He made the point that I suppose I am making in a roundabout sort of way. If we look back to 1973-74, there was zero regulation—
I am not going to talk about that. There were no rules, and under this legislation there were effectively no rules for bouncers. But it is a very different world today, where I think we legitimately expect our bouncers, our security personnel, to be beholden to some higher standards because they are performing some kind of public role and we want them to be seen as such. So our tolerance levels have gone down. We do not accept heavy-handed bouncers, security surveillance, and all of those things. I am very happy to support this bill, and we might just talk a little more about it on Television One’s Breakfast at 7.20 tomorrow morning.
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this
I think those comments made by Simon Bridges might be the first time that I have heard a politician name-drop himself in this Chamber. I almost feel obliged to defend my poor old dear—
—no, grandmother, but I am afraid I cannot. It is true that my grandmother watches Breakfast so that she can see “lovely” Simon every Thursday, but she is a wonderful, wonderful human being none the less.
First, I acknowledge the comments made by Keith Locke. [Interruption] I will not be baited into talking about Simon Bridges any further. It was a really interesting discussion on risk, which is something in which I have a bit of a personal interest. I am interested in the consequences that occur when we as a society do not tolerate certain levels of risk, and when we do not have adequate levels of accountability. That gives rise to an increase in bureaucracy and an increasingly litigious society. So I think that the role of risk, our tolerance for it, and the really important role of accountability are the real issues, because when they are lacking, they give rise to bureaucracy. But that is a whole different issue.
Today we are discussing the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. There are just two things I will mention before I go into a little more detail. The Associate Minister of Justice, the Hon Nathan Guy, pointed out that this bill has been a while in the making. I acknowledge the work that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove originally did on this bill. It required a bit of work, and that is probably proven by the fact that it sat with the Justice and Electoral Committee for a full 11 months. If the National Government wishes to criticise the length of time it has taken, that criticism should fall evenly on both sides of the House. It is not something that I would like to see rushed; it is an area that we will not be revisiting for quite some time. In fact, I would almost extend that to the point that although we have pressing events coming up like the Rugby World Cup, I am loath to see us make significant changes that undermine some of the important things that we are obliged to balance, such as issues of privacy. In rushing through this bill, we have compromised that issue of privacy through our approach to clause 66, which David Parker has already spoken about, and I will spend a little more time on that.
I noted that the Minister said that members of the industry greeted this legislation warmly at one of their conferences today. I can understand that, because originally, as it was introduced, it was much more prohibitive than the current bill before us now. So I have absolutely no doubt why they welcomed the bill, but I worry that we are still leaving a bit too much open in the final drafting of the code of conduct.
There are three areas that I want to touch on quickly: licensing, training, and the issue of clause 66, which I would like to talk about in just a little more detail. Labour stated from the outset that we understood that clause 66 restricted the ability of private investigators to take photographs or make recordings of subjects without those individuals’ permission. We accepted that perhaps that was going a bit too far and was probably prohibiting those investigators in the job they were doing. But we did not accept that it was adequate simply to delete that provision altogether. Our preference was to err on the side of caution, particularly given that, as we have stated time and time again, the Law Commission is looking at a piece of work that touches on that area. I would have thought that the National Government would be interested in at least two things: first, providing consistency in the way we address privacy issues in this House, and, second, what happens if we remove clause 66, put in a code of conduct as the Government has proposed and then find that the Law Commission comes back and proposes something completely different. That inconsistency—having to rejig again if we find ourselves wanting to implement changes recommended by the Law Commission—will impose a cost on the industry and will have an impact on those working in the area. I would have thought that we would pay a little more attention to that level of instability within the industry. So there were greater things at play and I think a little more patience with this issue would have been helpful. Keeping clause 66 in place for the time being and perhaps having an omnibus bill that dealt with privacy issues later down the track would have been a better way to deal with this situation.
I want to speak on the issue of training. The greater training of those working in this area is something we wholeheartedly endorse, because private investigators and security guards are picking up work that may not have been contracted out to the private sector as much as it is now. Some private companies are already investing in their people to make sure that they are up to scratch and well trained, but some are not, which relates to the purpose of having this set out in legislation and having a licensing regime in the first place.
We are particularly supportive of clause 56C because it gives a level of discretion to the licensing authority to give someone a licence even if he or she should be technically disqualified. The reason that is particularly important is that some people may have operated in this area for a significant number of years, may have proved themselves to be worthy members of the industry, may have done the job well, but may very well have something in their past that precludes them from entering into this industry were they to do it today.
I will not go into individual examples in this particular case, but I believe in the principle of a clean slate, which is something that some other members of this House have been slightly inconsistent on. So I think that clause 56C is important and I hope that discretion is used wisely.
I want to touch quickly on the licensing issue. We are probably talking about a doubling of the number of people who will need to come under this licensing regime, because the Act will extend the number of classifications that will be required to be licensed. But there is a balance in that, as well. As a former member of the Regulations Review Committee, I see from time to time the costs imposed on those who are working in licensed industries through relicensing and the frequency of relicensing. The efforts to keep costs down for those working in this sector, by requiring relicensing only every 5 years rather than every year, is a good thing.
We know that the Rugby World Cup is the reason why the Minister put through his Supplementary Order Paper moving the commencement date of this legislation from 1 December 2010 to 1 April 2011. But I am interested in the fact that the Minister has also given himself some extra discretionary powers to recommend an exemption to certification if the Minister is satisfied that the benefit to be gained by requiring people to hold certificates is outweighed by the public interest in ensuring that there are sufficient private security personnel working at a major event. It is quite obvious why that provision is there, but I would have liked to see that provision with a sunset clause attached to it, or for it to be time-limited, because I do not think it is something that we want to use too often. I think that, by and large, those who are technically covered within the criteria of needing to be licensed should be licensed, because they are then captured by a number of other provisions around training and around penalties for not fulfilling the requirements of the legislation. So I would have liked to see a time limit on that.
Clause 113C provides for a transition period for people who are in business, and I think it is right that we have a transition period. Instead of the date being set for 1 June 2010, it will now be appointed by Order in Council. I think that where possible it is good practice of this House to avoid those things being open-ended and to take a leadership role and set down those dates. That is also something I would have liked to see.
All in all, it is good legislation bar our ongoing dispute over clause 66. I look forward, ultimately, to seeing the recommendations of the Law Commission on privacy issues.
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) Link to this
It is my privilege to speak in the third reading debate of the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. This bill highlights the concern demonstrated by the review of the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act 1974. This bill repeals and replaces the 1974 Act. There have been major developments since the Act was enacted 1974. Times have changed and a lot of modern gadgets are now available.
This legislation ensures that in future there will be better screening and monitoring of all personnel entering this industry. To this end, there is a requirement to wear an identification badge that has been issued by the authority. A licensing authority will be established to replace the existing Registrar of Private Investigators and Security Guards. This authority will manage the licensing process and enforce the licensing requirements. This bill controls all people involved in this industry and ensures that personnel undertake at least a minimum level of training to handle any situation they may encounter. The licensing authority will also have discretion to cancel a licence if the licensee is guilty of misconduct or gross negligence in the course of his or her business. In this light, penalties for offences have been increased. The maximum penalty incurred for operating a business without a licence currently is $2,000. That will go up to $40,000 for an individual and to $60,000 for a company.
The reform of the security industry is very timely, as we will be hosting the Rugby World Cup next year. Under this bill, crowd controllers such as bouncers who perform an important role at busy bars and pubs will be regulated for the first time. They will be expected to deal with any crowd control situation that may arise. The most important policy change relates to the now removed clause 66, which, like section 52 of the 1974 Act, prohibited private investigators from taking or using photographs or recordings without obtaining a person’s written consent. This provision has been viewed very controversially for some time. This ban has made it extremely difficult for private investigators to do their work—work that is legitimate and often important, such as exposing frauds or locating missing persons. The majority of the select committee recommended removing clause 66 and replacing it with the requirement to make a regulation that imposes a code of conduct on private investigators. This code of conduct has a wide scope such as disqualification of a person from holding a licence if they have a conviction for certain offences, for example, violence or dishonesty. The select committee also extended the list of relevant offences as grounds for disqualification to include offences under the Arms Act, criminal harassment, contravening a restraining order, and intimate covert filming offences. Any of these offences would reflect on a person’s suitability to do security work.
Last, I acknowledge Chester Borrows, the chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee, and other members who have worked hard to finalise this bill. I also acknowledge the Hon David Parker, whose knowledgable input has also benefited this bill. I commend this bill to the House.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) Link to this
As has been stated a number of times in the debate on the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill this evening, the world is a different place than it was in 1974. It is different in terms of society, in the ways that Keith Locke described, and it is different in terms of the technological advances. Some of them are quite significant.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY Link to this
I was barely even a glint in the back of the thoughts of my daddy’s eye, or whatever we say—1974 was well before my time. The grey hair might be somewhat misleading.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY Link to this
It is my 32nd birthday this Saturday. I ask whether Mr Bridges wants to come.
I will come back to the bill. The law needed updating. Not only did we see that from the review of the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act 1974, but also it was somewhat precipitated by a specific event: the death in 2005 of Blenheim man Cedric Joyce after he was restrained by a bouncer. Clearly there was a need to address issues that the legislation as it stood was not sufficient to tackle.
Essentially we have legislation that endorses the work of the vast majority of people working who will operate under this legislation. It really is there only to ensure that the people who are operating at the margins are brought—
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY Link to this
It is a family heirloom. The bill was brought in to tidy up the people who are operating at the margins of the law. As so often is the case with legislation, the vast majority of people will probably not notice any difference. They are already doing the training as they should be. They are already ensuring that staff have the competency levels that are required in this legislation. This legislation brings us in line with the UK and Australia, so it is best practice around the world and very solid legislation.
A number of people have addressed clause 66. I do not think anybody could articulate the issues that the Opposition has with clause 66 any better than David Parker. I suspect that we will address this matter again when the Law Commission presents its thoughts in this area. It is perhaps disappointing that the Government has not heeded calls from the Opposition to retain the status quo until the Law Commission reports back, but we will have another opportunity to address that matter in the future.
The other thing that a lot of people have mentioned this evening is that the Rugby World Cup is coming up soon and it is important to have this legislation in place before then. It is important to New Zealand’s reputation that bouncers, crowd controllers, and people who are working at those events are well trained, and know how to deal with difficult situations. It is important not just for events but also for people who are just going out on a Friday or a Saturday night to know that the people who are there to look after them are well trained, competent, and capable of defusing some of the tense and potentially violent situations that sometimes arise when alcohol is thrown into the mix.
I am sure that most members of the House will have witnessed some of the old-school tactics that bouncers used. I have witnessed situations where they seemed to be deliberately inflaming the situation so that the police would get involved. That was the way they would deal with someone who was being difficult. I think that under this legislation we will see everybody coming into line and using more sensible, more up-to-date methods of trying to maintain good order both at events and in social situations in central business districts, where people just want to have a good time but sometimes a little too much alcohol tips things over and brings the balance on to the wrong side.
Having said that this legislation simply endorses the good practices out there, it is surprising that clause 66 is being changed in the way that it is. It is absolutely about people who will push the boundaries and who will seek to operate on the margins, shall we say, in areas that most of us would consider to be fairly unethical. So there is a bit of an inconsistency. Essentially this bill is trying to tidy up some fringe issues, but it is opening up a whole new area that could be potentially exploited by people who are not of great ethical or moral standing. Having said that, I support what all of our colleagues around the House have said tonight. Generally speaking, this is good legislation. The problems with it will probably be addressed in other circumstances in the future. The Opposition is very happy to support the third reading of this bill.