Guy Nathan: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — Second Reading 
Guy Nathan: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13704] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill be now read a second time 
. I also signal my intention to move a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee of the whole House stage. The Supplementary Order Paper changes the commencement date to 1 April 2011 to allow time for the industry to prepare for the changes and make some amendments to ease the transition to the new regime. 
I am very pleased to present this bill to the House. As the name suggests the bill regulates the private security industry. Indeed the industry is very diverse. Normally when we hear the word “security” we think of uniformed guards patrolling barbed wire fences at night. However there are many members of this industry who are much less visible—for example people who monitor closed-circuit television cameras and install house alarms and private investigators hired by insurance companies to detect fraud are all members of the private security industry. All of us rely on members of this industry to protect ourselves or our homes and family whether at work catching up with friends at the pub or supporting our favourite sports team at the local stadium. We often take it for granted but security personnel protect New Zealanders’ safety security and property 24 hours a day 7 days a week. The bill does not change the overriding purpose of the regulation of the private security industry. Its purpose is to reduce the risk of harm to members of the public by preventing unsuitable people from working in the industry particularly those with convictions for serious offences of violence or dishonesty. 
The main driver for change is that the current Act is over 35 years old. It is outdated and it does not adequately address the risks associated with some types of security work. This bill modernises the law and makes some important extensions and enhancements to address those risks. In particular the current legislation does not cover security personnel who are responsible for protecting people or indeed for keeping order in today’s society. The bill addresses this significant gap. 
As with any occupational regulation the challenge is to balance the risks associated with the industry against the inevitable cost of regulation. I believe that this bill achieves a good balance between those competing issues. The new regime will benefit not only the public who rely on the services provided by the industry but also members of the industry itself. The industry’s reputation will be enhanced by stricter entry standards training requirements and better enforcement to weed out illegal operators and unsuitable individuals. The bill seeks to address the risks associated with untrained security personnel becoming involved in physical confrontation. In 2008 the Wellington regional coroner Ian Smith called for compulsory training following the tragic death of Cedric Joyce in Blenheim in 2005 after he was restrained by bouncers outside a pub. 
Reform of the security industry is also timely with the Rugby World Cup coming up next year. Under the bill crowd controllers such as bouncers who play an important role at busy bars and pubs will be regulated for the first time. People working in this type of role must be suitable as they will be expected to deal with any crowd-control issue that may arise. The current legislation does not include any training requirements or minimum competency standards for security personnel. The bill will enable regulations to be made requiring industry members to be properly trained. This will assist in ensuring that security personnel have the necessary skills to perform their role safely and competently. The Government intends to require personal guards property guards and crowd controllers to be trained. The detail of the training requirements including the timing of their introduction will be determined when the regulations are developed after the bill becomes law. This change will benefit not only the public but also the staff themselves by increasing the value of their licence or indeed their certificate. 
The bill will also improve enforcement. A dedicated enforcement body will be established called the complaints investigation and prosecution unit. The unit’s role will be to ensure compliance with the new legislation. This will include carrying out investigations providing information to the new Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority and prosecuting offences under the Act. Currently this role falls solely on the police who often have to give priority to more pressing matters. The new unit will be funded by the industry through licence fees. 
The bill also updates offences and increases penalties. For example the penalty for operating an unlicensed security industry business will go up from $2000 to $40000 for an individual and $60000 for a company. This should act as a deterrent to cowboy operators. 
The bill changes the licensing regime from an annual to a 5-yearly process. This will streamline processes and reduce unnecessary cost and bureaucracy. Instead of applying for a licence renewal each year businesses and individuals will have to provide annual updates to the licensing authority. For example they will have to advise the authority if they have been convicted of a relevant offence in that time. 
I now turn to the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee which worked very very well as this bill went through the select committee. Before talking about the detail of those changes I take the opportunity to thank everyone on that committee for getting the bill to where it is now. I also extend my thanks to the 38 organisations and individuals who took the time to read the bill—which is not exactly light reading with over 100 clauses—to think about the issues and to draw on their own personal experiences to come to the select committee and make a submission on how the legislation can be improved. The committee after considering those submissions recommended several changes to ensure the bill met its objectives. Many of these changes are technical in nature to clarify aspects of the bill and to make it operate as intended. I also acknowledge the Ministry of Justice officials who have helped through that process. 
The most significant policy change recommended by the committee relates to clause 66. Clause 66 carried over a provision from the 1974 Act that prohibited private investigators from taking or using photographs or audio recordings without obtaining the person’s written consent. That provision has been controversial for quite some time and generated much debate before the select committee. The prohibition made it very difficult for private investigators to do their work—work that is legitimate and often important such as detecting fraud or locating missing persons. Private investigators were also prevented from doing what other members of the public including—as we in this House know—the media can do. The majority of the select committee recommended removing clause 66 and replacing it with a requirement to make regulations that prescribe a code of conduct for private investigators. The bill requires the code of conduct at a minimum to cover the surveillance of individuals by private investigators. However it could also address other matters if necessary. 
The select committee made several other amendments to clarify and improve the operation of the bill. An example is that the committee extended the range of matters that can disqualify a person from holding a licence or certificate such as conviction for certain offences of violence and dishonesty. The select committee extended the list of relevant offences to include offences under the Arms Act 1983 criminal harassment in breach of a restraining order under the Harassment Act of 1997 and intimate covert filming offences under the Crimes Act of 1961. Conviction for any of these offences would reflect on a person’s suitability to do security work. 
In conclusion I am confident that the bill achieves reform that is proportionate to the risks. Most members of the private security industry are hard-working professionals in whom New Zealanders can place their complete trust. However regulation encourages all members of the industry to meet the high standards that we expect today in New Zealand. I believe that this bill will achieve that goal in an efficient and cost-effective way. I commend this bill to the House.