Adams Amy: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — First Reading 
Adams Amy: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2722] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in support of the first reading of the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. As we have already heard this bill will repeal and replace the existing 1974 legislation which is of course the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act. When the operation and sufficiency of that Act was reviewed a number of areas requiring further work were identified. The bill before us which was introduced at the end of the previous Parliament is the result of that work. 
In my time this afternoon I will speak directly about the importance of robust legislation in this area because I believe that shows the necessity to replace the law we have currently with stronger and more effective law. The need for appropriate and effective legislation in this area is at its heart recognition of the importance of the safety and security of our people and our information. The professional roles that are regulated by this bill are those entrusted with the care of exactly that—our people and our information. 
There are two words that I have been surprised I have not heard more of in this debate so far: “trust” and “reliance”. It is the trust and reliance that we put in these professionals that justifies and indeed demands a robust system of regulation that the public can have confidence in. If we consider first the personal security roles covered by this bill—personal guards security officers bouncers crowd controllers and the like—we see that the importance of those roles and of those who carry them out well is evident from just about any worst-case scenario that could be imagined. 
I am sure we are all very well aware of the image of crowd controllers and guards hovering around the fringes of people and events yet very few of us I imagine would be able to recall ever seeing any of them actually put to the task as it were—except perhaps taking down a streaker or two at the rugby or the cricket which I have certainly seen on occasion. It would not be too difficult to be lulled into thinking that they do not do much and that anyone could do it. I would suggest though that nothing could be further from the truth. 
The fact that these roles exist and increasingly so all the time tells us of the very real risks they guard against and it tells us what could go wrong if the people employed to do this work do not have the skills training or personal characteristics required to be effective in their roles. It is not just about having physical strength and in the case of catching streakers a good turn of speed. I would suggest that a fair degree of psychology behaviour management discretion judgment and self-control are required. The people in these roles have to be relied on to act instinctively yet still appropriately in highly charged adrenalin-laden situations. Getting that right is not just a matter of chance. It is a matter of careful selection skills training and experience. 
Through this bill we will have a mechanism to ensure that those who are in such roles are able to meet the threshold criteria. In addition I will just mention the ability to promulgate codes of conduct by regulation as I think this is an important part of the bill that will allow us to have a streamlined way of reacting to on-the-job issues as they arise and to set out the behaviour that is expected. Personal security is one of those fields where staff doing their job well as the vast majority do are almost invisible yet if the job is not carried out in the way that it should be even once the consequences can be significant. In fact they can be disastrous. 
All members of this House I am sure will also understand all too well the importance of the security of our information which is the other area that this bill caters for. Certainly in my previous professional role as a lawyer confidentiality was paramount. As a lawyer and now as a member of this House I am like other members aware that we are often entrusted with the most personal information about the lives of others or with highly sensitive commercial information. 
Although I have no doubt at all that those in professional roles and their staff understand that very well and work extremely hard to maintain that confidentiality I have always been extremely aware of how vulnerable that confidentiality becomes with regard to our computer security people our technicians our secure document storage people document destruction contractors and our site security. All those people wander through our places of work both physically and electronically and they have access to important and confidential information. Our ability to keep those confidences really rests not just on our own use of that information but also on the ability of those people to maintain the standards of professionalism and responsibility that we trust they have. 
We all place exceptional trust in the integrity of those who fill those roles. I do not think it is unreasonable that we should be able to rely on the fact that licensing systems are in place to ensure that suitable training has been undertaken and that the people who are engaged in those roles have the skills and the reputation that we would expect them to have. 
The framework was set up under the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act 1974 but in this bill with the advantage of our ability to review 35-odd years of operation under the existing legislation we are now able to address existing weaknesses and make sure that the framework is as robust as we want it to be. We can address the shortfalls and we can encourage our communities to have faith and trust in and reliance on the people who carry out such important work. 
The types of professionals required to be licensed under this bill hold roles of trust and safety as I have said. Society has a right to demand standards of conduct from people who hold themselves out as being able to perform these roles. As I mentioned earlier when these roles are carried out as we expect them to be we often do not stop to think about what would go wrong if they were not. We do not think about the potential consequences of unqualified or inappropriate people who hold themselves out as doing this work are engaged in doing this work and have access to all sorts of situations. 
I know that everyone in this House will have heard stories about patrons of bars or clubs being seriously hurt or killed in altercations with bouncers or indeed with other customers. I am sure we have all seen television footage from overseas of people being trampled to death when crowds and riots have got out of control. We all know about or can imagine the damage that can be done through identity theft or the improper use of personal or confidential information. These are the very real and very significant risks that this bill addresses. 
The other thing I want to mention in relation to bills like this is that the good people in this industry the vast majority who carry out their roles with the highest degree of integrity and take pride in their work stand to gain as much as society. Any industry is degraded by the presence of cowboys. Therefore those who hold themselves out as able to perform those roles with integrity and skill are protected by a bill ensuring that that is the case. We can have faith as a society that the people carrying out those roles have the skills and the training and that serves to enhance the reputation of the profession as a whole. 
I will look for a moment at who is covered by the requirements of this bill but I will start by considering who is excluded. Just as members on this side of the House want to provide appropriate levels of protection we certainly have a healthy reticence about putting in place any new compliance regimes where they are not justified or where any perceived benefits are likely to be outweighed by corresponding costs. Certainly volunteers neighbourhood patrols community watch groups and the like who give up their spare time to make their communities safer will not be put through hoops. They will not have to fill out forms and be approved. Equally our policemen and policewomen our Department of Corrections staff and other Crown employees will not need to prove themselves on several separate occasions. 
This bill will not mean that in-house security provided in an employment relationship has to be licensed with the exception of crowd controllers. I want to comment on that for a moment because I think there is an important reason for that distinction. If employers employ their own in-house security staff then the risk is theirs and if they choose to employ inappropriate people then so be it. But when crowd control staff are employed the risk is the crowd’s. That is why we are entitled to make that distinction and say that crowd control staff employed or not should have to be licensed so that the crowd can have faith in their competence. 
I acknowledge the Hon Clayton Cosgrove and Mr Ron Mark for their work on the development of the bill. I would like to thank the Hon Richard Worth for his role in making sure that this bill is progressed after three reviews this millennium—there were three reviews but nothing happened. The bill was finally brought to the House at the end of the last parliamentary term but it is the Hon Dr Richard Worth who brought it to the House. I support the first reading and I am pleased to commend the bill to the House. Thank you.