Parker David: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:666;Page:13856] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Minister in the chair the Hon Nathan Guy for those comments. I am not sure that it is a pleasure to be confused with David Carter but I will not take offence. 
I take issue with the Minister on whether private investigators should be able to undertake search and surveillance measures. The general policy that underlies our law is that we give additional powers to the police for search and surveillance and we control the powers of the police and other State agencies for search and surveillance. One would expect the controls that apply to search and surveillance by the police to be at least matched by controls on search and surveillance by non-State agencies like private investigators— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: More so. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
:—if not more so. 
The problem we have is that there is a lacuna in the law; there is a gap in the law relating to search and surveillance by non-State agencies. The general rule in respect of private investigators is that they should have no further powers than private citizens. They are not arms of the State. They are effectively private people who are agents of other private people. They have the ability to be quite invasive with modern surveillance techniques. They have the ability to infringe on the civil liberties of other private citizens to go about their daily business without undue intrusion. 
The problem is that because there is a gap in the law relating to non-governmental search and surveillance across the board there is a lack of control not just for ordinary citizens but also for private investigators. When this bill was originally introduced to the House we were alert to that. The Law Commission was alert to it. It said not to give private investigators the power to take photographs or do other search and surveillance until the underlying law that relates to search and surveillance by non-State agencies non-governmental agencies was fixed up. Labour thinks this legislation should do that. 
I agree that it is nonsensical that private investigators cannot take photographs when an ordinary citizen can. But the problem is that if we confer this power on private investigators you bet your bottom dollar that when it comes to tidying up legislation relating to search and surveillance by non-State agencies non-governmental agencies private investigators will come along and say: “But we’re special. We’ve already got these powers; Government conferred them to us under the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. We are not private citizens we are in a different category and we should be treated differently.” That argument will be harder to rebut if private investigators are given this power now given that they have been without this power since at least 1974 which has not caused too much of a problem. 
Let us wait for Parliament to properly consider the issue of search and surveillance powers of non-governmental agencies and then fix up the law for private investigators. If we do it in the order that this bill suggests we will create a pressure in the future for private investigators to have wider powers of search and surveillance than would be held in the future by private citizens. 
In my opinion that is wrong. That is why we have promoted an amendment to reinstate into this bill the prohibition on private investigators taking photographs that would be carried forward from prior law. We have enabled that to be tidied up in the future by stating that prohibition can be repealed by Order in Council but not until after Parliament has considered search and surveillance by non-governmental agencies. We know that that consideration is coming because the Law Commission has produced a draft report we know that it intends to come up with a final report and we know that there is a gap in the law at the moment. 
In my opinion it is nonsense that we have controls on search and surveillance by the police and other State agencies but we have no protection of our civil liberties against similar intrusions by private people. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It’s bizarre. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is bizarre it is inconsistent and it has crept up on Parliament and our country as a consequence of changing technologies. 
There was a time when there was very little privatisation of security services—that has changed over time and therefore there is a need for regulation. There was a time when there was very little privatisation of what are effectively activities of the State in policing conduct. That has changed over time as there has been more privatisation and therefore there is a need for more regulation. There was also a time where there were very few technologies available to people. People effectively had still cameras. Now people can have directional microphones and cameras tied up to the World Wide Web. As we see they can be intrusive of the public. 
Members of Parliament including me have had some experience of private-sector surveillance of our private lives which I think is inappropriate. I know that the Hon Bill English suffered some intrusions of his private residence by people taking photographs from the street of his children’s bedrooms. That is wrong irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the underlying dispute. I do not think that Bill English should suffer intrusions into his private home by busybodies taking photographs of his children’s bedrooms. That is wrong and there is a need for the law to control it. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: So why did you do it then? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Well at the moment it will be permissible if we pass this law. It seems to me that we are authorising private investigators to do things similar to it and I do not think we should let that particular cat out of the bag. 
As I said previously when we in this Parliament try to properly protect the civil liberties of all New Zealanders to live private lives without inappropriate intrusion not just by State agencies governmental agencies but by non-governmental agencies like private investigators when we try to put that cat back in the bag members should just watch because private investigators will say that they are special. They will say that they need more powers than ordinary private citizens. For that reason I think that as a matter of principle we should carry forward the existing law. I know the existing law is imperfect but let us carry it forward for another few years. Let us continue with the situation we have had since the current legislation was passed in 1974 maybe for only another 1 or 2 years until this Parliament fixes up the proper control of search and surveillance by non-governmental agencies. 
I urge the Minister to consider the amendment to that effect in my name. My amendment reinstates clause 65 which was in the bill when it was referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The amendment states that private investigators cannot conduct these search and surveillance operations without consent. It says that the status quo—it is effectively the status quo currently—should prevail until such time as this Parliament has considered legislation that regulates surveillance by non-Government agencies. Until that legislation is considered by this House the status quo should prevail. Thank you.