Flavell Te Ururoa: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — First Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2689] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. I hope I take a different line from Mr Garrett’s revelations in respect of gang leaders as we talk about this particular bill in the hope of course that we start talking about positive ways to address these sorts of issues. The constant haranguing of those people will probably not do us too much favour in trying to rehabilitate some of the issues they currently face. Be that as it may as we turn to this bill I say that when many Maori consider the notion of “PIs”—private investigators—some of the younger generation like me think about  
Magnum P.I. 
 that programme that used to be on TV. You might remember him Mr Deputy Speaker. He lived in Hawaii a very “unlucky person”— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Oh John Key! 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: —who worked when he wanted to just like Mr Hughes. He had access to beautiful women—that is questionable—an overflowing beer cabinet which is also questionable and he had a Ferrari. I am not too sure about that one for Mr Hughes. 
That is I suppose the notion that some of us have about private investigators whereas the relationship of Maori to security guards is well-established on the other side of things. In fact I understand that a well-known artist—namely Michael Parekowhai—has even created some sort of art feature that has 15 brown fibreglass figures posing as security guards somewhere in Aotearoa. I am led to believe that the theme throughout the work is of a stereotypical Maori male standing guard outside bars clubs and social events. It is a figure we can all probably quickly identify; it is a study in being staunch. 
This bill puts together two categories in dealing with the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act of 1974. It is putting in place measures to ensure that both private investigators and security guards are appropriately qualified to undertake their work and that their conduct is consistent with the public interest. The important distinguishing point about this bill however is that it is not just restricted to private investigators and security guards. In reviewing the licensing requirements for the security industry the bill now brings within its fold a much wider group: private investigators security technicians—that is those who fix burglar alarms or security cameras—security consultants the agents who offer confidential document destruction property guards personal guards and crowd controllers whom we might more commonly call bouncers. 
Although the scope of people targeted has broadened there is more flexibility about the requirement for licensing renewal and certification. Indeed it is a huge—a massive—jump from the expectation of being subject to an annual review to now having that review every 5 years. 
The other major aspect of the bill outside the licensing changes relates to the policy goal that the conduct of those in the security sector is consistent with the public interest. For a classic example of this we need think only of the events that shook Aotearoa in October 2007. We might remember that Peter Williams QC was one of the first off the blocks to call for private investigators to look into the facts of the police raids that took place in Ruatoki that year under the auspices of the Terrorism Suppression Act. In speaking out Mr Williams challenged the State. He issued a statement well-known in Maori circles: waiho ma te ture ano te ture e patu—let it be for the law to beat itself up. His urgent recommendation was that all New Zealanders should be concerned at the breach of rights that unfolded in the nation of Tuhoe. He suggested that there should be some private investigators to get all sorts of statements and to bring action to the High Court for exemplary damages and compensation for all of those who were badly treated. So we saw with the events of October 2007 perhaps a new environment where private investigators might well be considered a useful investment for Maori to call on for support and expert advice. 
The Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill makes an important start as I say in regulating the private security sector. It brings into being a conversation about professionalism integrity and respect—values that are at the very essence of any aspect of the security industry. The Maori Party believes however that further amendments are needed to ensure appropriate standards of conduct are set and maintained. As a core requisite of standards of conduct we recommend that anti-racism training for private security personnel needs to be included in the code of conduct when it is developed and implemented. This bill introduces more objective criteria in determining who will get licensed. The licensing authority will retain discretion to assess suitability of applicants but the prevailing emphasis is on consistent values and standards by which we come to regard this profession. 
Within these criteria we hope that cultural competency will be elevated to be a significant component of the registration of competent and licensed private investigators and security guards. We will be looking forward to more detail coming out at the select committee phase around the licensing process—namely who gets approved. Although certain categories of people under both the current Act and the provisions of the bill are disqualified from applying there needs to be a more robust mechanism than conviction of certain offences to determine whether someone is suitable to be a licence holder or to be certified. 
We will be strongly recommending that those who have had experience in this sector those who are currently practising within it those who have left the industry or those who have been at the receiving end of the management and operations of personnel should be involved. For example if there are people who have had unsatisfactory experiences with security guards or perhaps bear resentment towards the activities of a private investigator it is vital that we hear their views alongside the views of those who may be more positively inclined. A key principle for the Maori Party in coming to this bill is that we want to be absolutely certain that the power of security staff is appropriately balanced to ensure the rights and safety of the public. Clarity around these standards is critical to ensure the credibility of the security industry while also adhering to due protection of the public. 
At the heart of the issue is the role of power and control. Although security workers and other personnel across the sector do not have the same power as a police officer to remove a person’s liberty they do hold aspects of power in their roles and need to be duly responsible with that power. Feedback that we have picked up from the sector shows a desire to see a code of conduct actually developed and used to establish and maintain industry standards. This has never been done as yet even though I am led to believe there is provision to do so in the 1974 Act. A code of conduct would provide a mechanism by which to monitor and review the standards of practice through adherence to a code of conduct of licence and certificate holders. This will be especially important given that the licensing period is now 5 years and also to be able to better regulate the conduct of those who are already licence and certificate holders. 
There are many issues and experiences that come with this bill that will benefit from more intense scrutiny at the select committee. In light of the need for more information and indeed more analysis the Maori Party is happy to support this bill at its first reading. Kia ora tatou.