Flavell Te Ururoa: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — Third Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:14031] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa i tenei po. Thanks for the opportunity to take just a short call really from the Maori Party perspective. As other speakers have said the Privacy Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill is important and it amends outdated legislation from 1974. From our perspective it is more than just getting up to date; the key to the bill is to ensure that security workers are trustworthy which was a point made by my colleague Mr Locke. They must also have the skills and training to do their jobs well. Both of those are important things. This bill has immediate relevance to security guards bouncers doormen and security technicians who will now have to hold licences and certificates of approval with the threat of being penalised by fines of up to $60000 for breaches. 
When I got wind of this bill I was approached by a person who leads a large security firm in Rotorua. He had basically two concerns. Firstly he did not mind the whole notion about some sort of accreditation but he mentioned—I say for the purposes of the Minister—that the turnover of the applications was a little bit slow. That was a problem for him because when he called on all members of his huge security firm and had to pull in all of his workers from Taupo Tokoroa and around Rotorua—they were needed around Christmas time when all the big festivals were on the rock festivals the Ragamuffin festival big rugby games and so on and so forth—the turn-round he said was a little bit slow. I just mention that in passing. 
Secondly if he had to take on staff for a short period of time—maybe for a one-off job—those people still had to pay a fee and to go through the process of getting accreditation when they might have been going to work only once or possibly twice over a period of a year. Therefore it was almost a waste of time. In fact I think he mentioned that his company had to pay the fees or that he was willing to take up the costs to assist his workers’ come-on or else it was a waste of time for them even to join; the pay they would get would basically go out the door from having to pay the fees to get accredited. I just leave those issues for the Minister who hopefully is listening to consider. 
A key issue within the bill appears to have created the most interest and that is the question of clause 66—whether to delete it. That clause restricts private investigators or their employees from taking photographs or making recordings without the subject’s written consent. The Maori Party was certainly sensitive to the potential risk of abuse and unfair conduct by private investigators if the restrictions were removed but we noted also the advice of the Law Commission that section 52 of the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act currently provides protection for individuals from unauthorised surveillance so in a sense that Act deals with that issue. 
We are also interested in the predominant theme of the majority of submissions which called for a private investigator to have a code of conduct and for a code of ethics to be established as well. We want to ensure that appropriate standards of conduct are set and maintained and that the power of security staff is appropriately balanced to ensure the rights and safety of the public. 
To know exactly what it means on the ground I have heard some feedback from security doormen at the famous—or infamous—Grumpy Mole Saloon in Rotorua who have to deal with both the best and the worst of people in the Waiariki electorate. These doormen say they already undergo training and are registered by getting New Zealand Qualifications Authority qualifications. As part of the checking process referees will be asked to describe what sorts of persons these people are and the last thing we want is security personnel who want to give as good as they get when dealing with disorderly and drunk people. That probably would not be the best situation. They also have a process of mentoring inasmuch as new employees are teamed up with more experienced doormen before they gain qualifications. That is important. Dealing with drunks is difficult at the best of times but security guys end up as we know often being the subject of spitting kicks and objects being thrown at them and enduring all that supposedly in the line of duty. As a result of this bill workers will have to provide to the authority annual returns of relevant information such as a recent conviction and they will have to wear an authorised badge at all times while working which at least shows their accreditation in a physical sense. 
We are most interested to see there is also a code of conduct in place to ensure that appropriate attitudes such as cultural competency—the ability to work across cultures—are maintained throughout every aspect of the industry’s work. We are obviously supporting this bill’s third reading and we appreciate the work that has been done by the Minister.