Hipkins Chris: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — First Reading 
Hipkins Chris: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2724] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I rise in support of the first reading of the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. The Labour Party supports this bill—in fact it was introduced by the previous Labour Government on 11 September 2008. This bill is yet another introduced by the previous Labour Government that the National Government is progressing. I congratulate the National Government on progressing all of the bills that the previous Labour Government—the very diligent and hard-working Labour Government—left on the Order Paper. I am looking forward to seeing some new ideas and new bills from this new National Government. National has had 6 months to come up with some ideas and we are still waiting to see what it might come up with. 
This bill is very important. The aims of the bill are to prevent certain people from either running businesses or working in various roles in the industry to ensure that the participants in the industry have at least a minimum level of appropriate training to require industry participants to comply with appropriate rules of conduct to prescribe penalties for offences against the Act and to ensure the effective and efficient administration and enforcement of the Act. 
Labour introduced this bill to ensure that there are suitable checks and balances for the private security industry which has broadened in scope and responsibilities in recent years. We have seen some pretty dodgy cases of private investigators in recent years and I refer in particular to a case that will be well known to the House although it occurred before my time here. It is the case of the private investigators engaged by the Exclusive Brethren in concert with the National Party to investigate senior Labour Party figures in order to gather dirt to smear the then Labour Government. I found it ironic to listen to National Government members heaping praise on Helen Clark during the last House sitting week—the week that she gave her valedictory speech—when those members spent years trawling around with their Exclusive Brethren mates trying to find any piece of dirt they could. They were aided and abetted by dodgy private investigators who were paid for by the Exclusive Brethren with the knowledge and support of the National Party in order to smear the previous Labour Government. Is it not ironic that National members are now supporting a bill that cleans up an industry that has done so much for them and so much to get them into their position in Government now? 
One might think that the National Party has turned over a new leaf that its members have left their Exclusive Brethren days behind and that they have forgotten about the fact that John Key cosied up to the Exclusive Brethren. There is TV footage of him cosying up to the Exclusive Brethren but National members have forgotten about that. They have turned a new page. They are in Government now; they are going to clean up their act. They are going to leave behind their days of digging dirt and smearing Labour politicians. But what did we see only yesterday? National is so desperate about Mt Albert that the National research unit was trawling around in order to find dirt on a person who may be a Labour Party candidate. National is so desperate to exceed expectations that before the Labour Party candidate has even been selected National members are already digging for dirt against the candidate. They are up to the same dirty tricks that they were up to when they were aided and abetted by the Exclusive Brethren and the private investigators who were paid for by the Exclusive Brethren with the knowledge and support of the National Party. 
National members want to defame and smear a person who as Phil Goff said today has put his life at risk and has done more for humanity—receiving gallantry awards for saving the lives of children—than anybody in the National Party. National members wanted to smear him so they got their amateur unregistered private investigators to go out there and dig for dirt to see what they could find. That should not happen. The private investigation industry needs to be cleaned up and the National Party needs to clean up its act as well. Is it not interesting to contrast those standards? National members are willing to trawl through and try to find any piece of dirt they can on Labour Party politicians but what about a case in their own backyard where there are serious issues of public transparency and accountability? What are they willing to do about that? They are willing to do nothing. 
Is it not ironic that the Hon Dr Richard Worth who cannot even follow the most basic rules of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 is the Minister in charge of a bill that aims to clean up an industry by requiring industry players to comply with appropriate rules of conduct? Let us think about the  
Cabinet Manual 
 and whether Dr Worth himself has applied the appropriate rules of conduct for his industry. Has he complied with the appropriate rules of conduct for his industry? The answer to that would be: “No he has not.” Richard Worth failed to declare to the Prime Minister a serious conflict of interest when he went on his junket around the world. The conflict of interest was revealed on 30 March 2009 when he was caught out travelling to India as a Minister to talk up aviation training in New Zealand all the while operating as a director of New Zealand Aviation Ltd and holding shares and directorships in the India Trade Group. Let us continue. On 30 March the Prime Minister John Key said that Dr Worth’s actions were stupid and unwise and that he had given him a bollocking. He said that he did not expect to see Richard Worth’s poor judgment repeated. Already a Minister in Mr Key’s own Government is failing to comply with the appropriate rules of conduct for his industry; this bill seeks to impose rules of conduct on a number of other industries including the private security industry. 
It gets better. On 2 April Dr Worth continued to hold shares in WSD Global Markets an Indian-focused company and J P Morgan Indian Investment Trust despite assurances that he had resigned from “absolutely everything.” Then on 6 April when John Key was asked whether Dr Worth had no more chances or lifelines John Key said “Yeah.” It goes on— 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that this member is new to the House and I appreciate that this is a wide-ranging debate but the member’s speech has to be within the topic of the bill. I believe that the new member is straying far away from the topic of the bill and I ask you to call him back to the main substantive part of the bill. Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member makes a point. I just make the observation that it is unnecessary for the point of order to relate to the experience of the member—I think it does not add to the substance of it. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I do not need anyone speaking to the point of order thank you—I am ruling. The point that has been made by the member is valid; I think the member should be talking about the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. It is fair enough to make some other observations but that should not be the basis of the substantive part of the member’s speech. The occasional reference to other things is acceptable but I think that at this stage we have dealt with that matter sufficiently. The member will continue. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I refer in particular to clause 77(e) which allows for the cancellation of a certificate for a potential private investigator if he or she “has been guilty of misconduct or gross negligence in the course of the business to which the licence relates:”. Of course that rule is a code of conduct. Were these rules to apply to Cabinet Ministers Dr Richard Worth could be deemed to have breached them and he could have had his licence revoked. In fact he could have had his ministerial warrant revoked were this Government to have any standards of conduct for its Ministers whatsoever—which we know it does not. On 7 April when Dr Worth failed to disclose that he was a director of WSD Global Markets and its associated company in the Cook Islands John Key said that he had an extensive discussion with him. John Key had previously said that Dr Worth had no more lifelines and he was on his final warning yet Dr Worth continued to breach the code of conduct for his profession. This Minister now brings a bill into this House that seeks to impose a code of conduct on other professions yet he is not willing to abide by the code of conduct for his own profession. 
One of the aspects of this bill is about ensuring that private security personnel have appropriate levels of training. There is a question here: did Dr Worth receive appropriate levels of training in conflict of interest issues? Did he receive appropriate training about the conflict of interest criteria in the  
Cabinet Manual 
? It would appear that he did not or if he did that he ignored them. 
Would Dr Worth pass the vetting process that bouncers will have to go through under this bill? The bill allows the licence authority to weed out people who have serious criminal convictions or who have been guilty of gross negligence or misconduct in the performance of their duties. We know that Dr Worth has been guilty of gross misconduct as a Minister yet John Key continues to turn a blind eye to that gross misconduct; he will not do anything about it. 
The Private Investigators and Security Guards Act has been largely unchanged since its passage in 1974. It is now outdated and major reforms are needed. Private security personnel perform a valuable and responsible role in the community and the risks associated with their work need to be addressed. We need to ensure that appropriate people are working in this sector who are properly trained for instance in dealing with potentially violent situations for their own protection or the protection of the public safety. Currently businesses and their staff are required to be licensed if they offer services in security consultancy work—for example installing burglar alarms—or if they are doing private investigation work. However there are some serious gaps in the current legislation and standards among private security businesses and staff vary widely. This bill introduced by the previous Government extends the licensing requirements and introduces mandatory training for private security staff and it will bring New Zealand into line with the United Kingdom and Australia. I am glad that the National Government has picked up this bill in order to raise standards.