Garrett David: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — Second Reading 
Garrett David: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13718] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 Members will be aware that in my short time in the House I am always extremely pleased when the House can agree on a matter. This is another one of those relatively rare occasions when there is agreement on all sides. Even better than that I am moved to rise—I was not going to—to register our support for the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill and also my agreement with an excellent speech made by Ms Sepuloni. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Gosh! 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Yes I never thought either that that would occur I say to Ms Sepuloni. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: I’m worried. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Well I am sad to hear that; I really am. Some of the nastier members on that side of the House have done that as well. When I have got up and praised one of their speeches some of the nastier members have said they will have to change their mind. I did not think that Ms Sepuloni was one of those members. I am very saddened that she has moved to do that when I have made the effort to get up and say to her “Well done.” 
As all members will know I am a compassionate man. One of the things that I have drawn attention to in the “three strikes” legislation is the manifestly unjust proviso that allows judges to avoid considering the consequences of sentencing. I have said in speeches on that topic that one of the situations where I think that it would be manifestly unjust to apply that law as it is written is where there are earlier convictions in one’s youth followed by a lengthy period of exemplary living and then something else happens. That issue is linked very closely to this bill in fact. A night out down Courtenay Place sadly can turn wrong for all sorts of reasons; a fight can turn into a death for all sorts of reasons. Like Ms Sepuloni but not just in my youth I have seen examples of the instances that she talked about. I have said to audiences that in my view it would be manifestly unjust if the “three strikes” provision were to be applied in that way: that if someone had had 10 or 15 years of blameless living then clearly it would be manifestly unjust to send that person to jail for life for a manslaughter that occurred in a fight. I agree entirely with Ms Sepuloni on that point. 
I think that if security guards—bouncers; men of my generation know them as bouncers—have had some convictions in the past but have then cleaned themselves up and come up with a perfectly respectable and legal occupation which is not a profession of course it would be unjust to deny those people continuing employment. I am against injustice. So we support the bill and I applaud Ms Sepuloni for that speech. 
I will add since everyone seems to have an anecdote in this debate—Simon Bridges talked about the lawnmowing contractor—that I lived for a considerable time in New Plymouth and a close friend of mine worked for the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). I remember her huge frustration when it was known even in the town that a fellow with a terribly crook back who could not work at all not even in a clerical capacity was nevertheless a champion bowler. As the older members of the House will know bowling involves a fair bit of bending. My friend was very frustrated about that—and she is to this day a very sensible woman. She said to her employer ACC that surely it could get private investigators along to photograph the guy. He was even reported in the paper as having won certain cups at bowls tournaments. But no it was against his human rights for him to be photographed while bowling although it was quite OK for him to claim money from ACC which is of course tantamount to theft from the hard-working taxpayer. 
That is my anecdote to join the others. We are very happy to join the rest of the House in supporting this measure. Thank you.