Garrett David: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — First Reading 
Garrett David: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2687] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. Before I go on to the substance of my contribution I am somewhat bemused and amused by the Hon Lianne Dalziel’s comments on police States and private police. I will venture to give her a slight history lesson about the establishment of the police by Sir Robert Peel in England in the 19th century. It was made very plain that the police were intended— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I am sure this is definitely associated with the bill. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: It will be in a second. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Hold on. Help is on its way. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Yes just watch this space. Sir Robert Peel established the police and made it very plain that they had no greater rights than the ordinary citizen; they were simply there to act as a voluntary organisation charged with assisting to maintain the rights of the ordinary citizen. We inherited that tradition of fearless policing on behalf of the ordinary citizen in this country. 
But what happened when Labour was in Government? Members will recall an incident whereby one Tim Selwyn was charged with convicted of and served time for sedition for putting an axe through the window of the previous member for Mt Albert. Can anyone believe that if Mr Selwyn had put an axe through the window of Mr Locke’s office or Mr Hide’s office or Mr Power’s office for that matter he would have been charged with sedition? I do not think so. What happened there? What happened when the police looked at the case about a certain painting? My understanding is that it went not only to the Wellington police who said there was a prima facie case of fraud— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What’s this got to with the bill? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: You raised the issue of— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to come back to the substance of the bill that we are debating and to confine his comments to it. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I was taught at law school that the starting point with any bill is to look first at the ill that is being caused. What is the mischief that is to be solved? I will give the House an excellent example of the mischief that this bill is designed to solve. Mr Cosgrove must take credit for it frankly. It attempts to prevent and in fact will prevent the activities of outfits like Rent-a-Bro which is a branch of the Mongrel Mob. They act as “security guards”. They employed one Mark Stephens once known as the “Parnell Panther”. He is a very unpleasant individual whom I have personally had the misfortune of meeting. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Have you met him? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Yes I have. He is an extremely unpleasant and intimidating individual. He was employed by Rent-a-Bro to collect debts. Because the industry is unregulated he was able to go around to some Chinese people’s places to collect a debt. Mr Mark Stephens for those members who are unaware and who are familiar with imperial measurements is about 6 feet 4 inches in height and about half that in width. He turned up at a couple of Chinese people’s places wearing his Mongrel Mob patch and announced that he was a member of the Mongrel Mob and he was there to collect a debt. 
Mr Mark Stephens the “Parnell Panther” is a member of the Notorious chapter of the Mongrel Mob. The Notorious chapter of the Mongrel Mob has been extolled by Mr Cosgrove’s friend Mr Kim Workman as a great example of the kind of gang that moves beyond crime and into legitimate business. Rent-a-Bro was supposedly that kind of legitimate business. But Mr Stephens turned up and because he is a bit thick he said he was actually with the Mongrel Mob and not with Rent-a-Bro. The victim of his intimidation was terrified and not surprisingly. He was a Chinese person and very small. Mr Stephens stayed for an hour. This person then complained to the police. I will leave the House to judge the good sense of the judge who when Stephens came before him said he accepted that Stephens had gone there in good faith. He had gone there in good faith but it was his referring to the Mongrel Mob that was the problem. The judge then went on to say correctly and clearly that the only reason Stephens referred to the Mongrel Mob would have been to intimidate or to overcome resistance to paying. So that is the kind of evil this bill is designed to cure and I commend the Labour members opposite for starting the process to cure that kind of thing. 
The Minister has mentioned already the death of Cedric Joyce in 2006 which was another example of the kind of security that older members of the House will remember—and they will remember the Hells Angels providing it at Altamont back in the 1960s. This bill is intended to take us away from all that and as other members have said to establish a basic level of skill and understanding to ensure that training and governance are effectively given and to develop training standards and requirements in the industry that will remove reliance on people like Mr Mark Stephens of the Notorious chapter of the Mongrel Mob—the reformed gang member Mr Workman is so proud of. Those people will be taken out of it; they will not be able to get jobs any more and that has to be good. 
The bill will keep criminals such as Mr Stephens out of the industry remove their sense of authority to act in the way they do and stop them from intimidating people—because that is what they are about of course. I notice that the members opposite have gone a bit quiet. That is what those people do. They are not successfully— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You tried that on the  
Back Benches 
 TV show—intimidating people didn’t you? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Oh yes he has started up again. They are not successfully rehabilitating criminals at all; once a gang member always a gang member and Mr Stephens is a great example of it. Again this is an example—a rare example—of the ACT Party supporting public expenditure. We recognise that fees created by or to be charged pursuant to this legislation are necessary in order for the proposed authority to act in the best interests of the public and to legitimise an industry that as the Minister said when he introduced the bill has operated under legislation that is now some 35 years old. 
We have some small reservations that the planned authority does not become overly bureaucratic and does not stifle an industry from developing and operating efficiently but we have no hesitation in supporting this bill to go to a select committee. Like National we look forward to refining the bill and hearing submissions. I am sure they will be wide ranging. Perhaps even the Notorious chapter of the Mongrel Mob will make submissions on why it should be allowed to register Rent-a-bro under the new legislation. The ACT Party will support this bill.