Lees-Galloway Iain: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — Second Reading 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13720] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 As other members have indicated it is a—[ 
Interruption 
]—goodness me I thought the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill was fairly non-contentious but all of a sudden things have heated up a little bit. I was going to say that as other members have said it is a pleasure to rise and speak on a bill that has cross-party support. This is something we know happens quite regularly in the House. People outside feel that the Opposition opposes for the sake of opposing sometimes but we know that that is not true. Mr Garrett has spoken about his appreciation of the Opposition’s support of this bill and the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill was originally tabled by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove when Labour was in Government. 
David Garrett 
: It’s got to get something right now and again. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Mr Cosgrove did a lot of things right I say to Mr Garrett. He did a lot of things right and he looks forward to the opportunity of getting more things right when Labour returns to Government in the future. As people have said this bill is about tidying up a very very old Act that was in desperate need of review and desperately needed bringing into the 21st century. The Act dates from 1974 and is actually a lot older than a lot of the people who have spoken in the debate this afternoon. It is definitely important that we do this sort of work to tidy things up. A number of concerns that Opposition members have with the bill have already been described but it is important to note that clause 66 has caused the most concern. The submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee on that clause were not unanimous by any stretch which is why the conversation needs to continue and I hope the Government is open to the amendments that the Opposition will put up at the Committee of the whole House. The select committee heard divergent views on this topic and although a number of people argued that the original restriction would inhibit the work of private investigators and that the public interest in investigating criminal activity outweighed public privacy a number of people argued that the clause should be retained to avoid potential abuse and unfairness. 
In a way that goes to the heart of what this bill is all about. As Richard Worth said in the first reading of this bill most members of the industry are professionals and are people in whom New Zealanders can place their trust. This is so often the case with legislation: the vast majority of operators who fall under the legislation are happily operating within the bounds of it and their business will not be affected—if anything it will be enhanced. The legislation is about picking up people who are not operating appropriately or effectively and who need a little bit of legislative support to encourage them along that way. 
So when we look at clause 66 we need to think about how the amended clause as it has come back from the select committee might potentially be abused. The conversation continues there are different points of view across the House and we have an opportunity as this bill progresses to look at that clause and come to a consensus approach around it. It is important to remember as well that the Law Commission’s privacy review is still continuing and the outcome of that is uncertain. Any new legislation that might result from that Law Commission review still is not clear. It makes sense to retain the status quo look to what the Law Commission is doing in this area and perhaps revisit the legislation when the commission’s advice after all the research and consideration it is putting in is available. 
One last thing I note is the importance of having this legislation in place before the Rugby World Cup. Our international reputation is hugely important to us here in New Zealand tourism is a big industry so what we do in environmental policy what we do in terms of law and order and how we treat tourists when they come to New Zealand is incredibly important. There is no doubt that a number of people will come to the attention of private security personnel. Those personnel need to be consummate professionals they need to have the proper training behind them and they need to treat those tourists well and with respect so that even if they have come to the attention of those private security personnel they will still go home feeling as though they have been treated fairly and appropriately. 
This is a good bill and it has good support in the House. It needs some tidying up and the Opposition looks forward to being able to offer good suggestions during the Committee of the whole House but we are happy to support it through this reading.