Bridges Simon: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:666;Page:13858] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 This is a very interesting debate on the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill and one where I accept that there probably are some nuances and subtleties. But I would also say that ultimately the issue comes down to some classic philosophical dividing lines—and not necessarily between Labour and National. However I think it would be fair to say that the position I take would be the position other National members would take more often than not and that David Parker’s position is probably one that Labour members would take more often than not. I would say that in a fight between freedom of information where people can record information and use it as they like and privacy—although I know that privacy will of course sometimes win—I would go with freedom of information nearly every day. I would much rather live in a freer society where people can say report and do what they like than in one where we are cloistered by privacy rules. 
It may be—and I reserve my position on this because there will be a Law Commission report—that David Parker is right and there is a gap in the law whereby private individuals can pretty much do what they like in terms of taking recordings and the like and we may need to address that as a Parliament in the future. There will be as we know a Law Commission report looking at non-State actors and their roles and powers but the solution in the interim most certainly is not to ban private investigators from doing what any other Joe Bloggs can do right now. The solution is not to restrict private investigators—particularly when what we are doing in this law is making them adhere to high standards and a code of conduct—from doing what others can do because as I said in the reading earlier this week we get this ridiculous situation where journalists for example can do some of the most remarkable things with their surveillance and recording. By and large that does not happen in this country thank goodness with maybe one or two exceptions. But in the United Kingdom there have been some flagrant examples of journalists using surveillance in very unethical ways to entrap people. I give an example I have used already—that of  
News of the World  
and Fergie and the situation she was tricked into. It was entirely manufactured by journalists. There may be something I am unaware of but I do not think there is anything to stop that from happening legally in New Zealand. So as I say it may be that David Parker has a point and we need to address that down the track. But the answer today is not to take his amendment on board and restrict what private investigators can do because they will be held to a strict code of conduct that will be put in place prior to the enactment of this legislation. 
I come back to some other examples that give a very real face as to why private investigators should be able to use surveillance. Outside of the police most Government agencies use private investigators in the public interest. Work and Income does the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) does and the Inland Revenue Department does. In the public interest those agencies use private investigators in most of their civil fraud cases. It is a silly situation—and I accept that it is one we have had for a long time—when those private investigators cannot take photographs and video recordings to prove a case of fraud. I give the example of ACC and the person with the bad back who in fact plays a mean game of golf every day of the week. What would be wrong or unethical about recording that for evidential purposes in court? That cannot happen now so we are changing the law.