Sepuloni Carmel: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — Second Reading 
Sepuloni Carmel: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13716] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I will go back to when the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill was first introduced. I remind the House that it was introduced by the previous Labour Government. It was introduced by Clayton Cosgrove in response to an actual event that happened in 2005 when a Blenheim man died after he was restrained by a bouncer. It was after that tragic accident that Labour responded and saw a need for the legislation to be reviewed and that is exactly what happened. 
It has taken a bit of time for National to actually push this bill through. It would have been good if National had taken into consideration the well-being of New Zealanders and the fact that they are at risk out there because this industry is not regulated. Although a number of incidents have prompted a call for the regulation of this industry the only thing that prompted National was the fact that the Rugby World Cup is on the horizon—not a genuine concern for the safety of New Zealanders. This bill is being pushed through so that the law will be in place by June 2011. It will be in place by the time the Rugby World Cup is held in New Zealand. That is good but it could have been done a little bit earlier. But never mind the time has gone and here we are discussing the bill in the House. 
I will discuss three main provisions of this bill. The first is the licensing requirements including police checks for criminal convictions. These requirements will be extended to cover a wider range of security-related activities—in particular crowd controllers including bouncers bodyguards and private security staff who guard people in legal custody. I go back to something that Hone Harawira said. When I first picked up this bill I thought about the fact that a large proportion of this workforce is Maori and Pacific. Many of them have fallen into these jobs largely because of their size and because they suit the work so they are hired into those positions. I agree that there needs to be a level of licensing. Part of this bill relates to training and there needs to be a level of training not only to protect the general public but also to protect the people who work in those jobs. We need to ensure they are well equipped to deal with the situations they encounter keeping in mind that many of those encounters can be a little bit worrying and can involve alcohol. So it is important that they have the right training to be able to deal with them. 
With regard to the licensing requirements I want to see a level of discretion in respect of the licensing authority that will be issuing those licences. I know of a number of people practising in these particular roles who have been doing so for years and who have previous criminal convictions going back many many years but who have not had any problems since they have been in those positions. For example people may have been security guards for 10 years but had a criminal conviction 20 years ago. It may have involved violence but during the extent of their time doing the job they have had no issues. I think that the licensing authority may need to take that into consideration particularly if some of these people had entered into this job as a career and intended to stay in it for a longer period. If they have had no issues despite the fact they have a criminal conviction and if they undertake the training and are able to achieve the standards that are set out by the licensing authority then there should be a level of flexibility and a level of discretion that the licensing authority can exercise to ensure that those people are not convicted twice over in their life. If they have served their time come out of prison and are living a decent life and working safely in one of these positions we should not be punitive towards them or punish them in any way. That would be my first concern and Labour will be bringing that issue up in the Committee stage to ensure that the licensing authority is given that level of discretion. 
A second point is that the bill brings us into line with the United Kingdom and Australia with regard to regulating the industry. For the first time in New Zealand private security staff will be required to undertake training if their job is guarding property guarding persons or keeping order among 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 requirements will be made explicit via an Order in Council. 
The third point is that a dedicated enforcement body—the complaints investigation and prosecution unit—will be created to ensure compliance with the new legislation and heavier penalties for offending. A penalty for unlawfully employing an unlicensed security guard will go up from $2000 to $20000. The penalty for unlawfully operating an unlicensed business will go up from $2000 to $40000 for an individual and $60000 for a company. 
I refer again to the incident in Blenheim in 2005 where a 25-year-old was killed outside a nightclub. That was one of many situations where things got out of control and a security person became involved in some sort of altercation with a member of the public. Another example was referred to by the father of the man who was killed. Having gone through the matter of his son’s death he found out from another woman that her son had been thrown down the stairs by a bouncer and now has brain damage. I am sure that many of us—maybe in our earlier days not these days—have seen altercations outside bars between bouncers and members of the public. At times we may have wondered whether the security personnel had taken things too far or whether on the other hand the member of the public had provoked and provoked so the altercation had been from both sides. 
Labour will support the bill but we have questions. I raised the first question earlier and it relates to the discretion that the licensing authority will have when granting licences taking into consideration criminal convictions but not being too punitive particularly if that person has been in that role for a long period. 
The other issue we have relates to the deletion of clause 66 which would have restricted a private investigator or employee from taking photographs or making recordings without consent. The Justice and Electoral Committee as we have been told heard divergent views on that topic. Some people argued that the restriction would inhibit the work of private investigators and that the public interest in investigating criminal activity outweighs public privacy. Others argued that the clause should be retained to avoid abuse and unfairness. The select committee recommended that despite concerns expressed by Labour and the Greens clause 66 should be deleted and a new clause 106A be inserted to create a regulation-making power to allow codes of conduct to be made for licensees. 
Labour opposes this change. It is not in favour of deleting clause 66 and replacing it with a regulation-making power because the outcome of the Law Commission’s review of privacy is uncertain and the shape of the new legislation in the privacy area is not clear. Also the amendment could give private investigators wider surveillance powers than enforcement agencies such as the police. Labour’s preferred option is to proceed with clause 66 as introduced and to consider reforming this provision once the Law Commission has released its final report. The commission has already recommended that Parliament enacts a new Surveillance Devices Act which will include new offences relating to the recording trafficking and filming of people.