Goudie Sandra: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — First Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2681] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak on the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. It has been said that although this bill may have been long overdue the previous Minister Clayton Cosgrove actually missed the mark. 
The first major flaw in this bill as has been said was the way in which the review of the industry prior to the drafting of this bill was conducted. Justice officials were constrained to only the parameters of the existing Act and were not allowed to go outside those parameters apart from training. So they did not actually look at some of the other areas—one of which was the use of cameras and video equipment by private investigators. This is something that private investigators have been calling for for a long time and it is quite significant when one is investigating cases in regard to the accident compensation scheme. They are challenged by lawyers representing a person under question and they are being asked questions relating for example to the colour of the jersey the person was wearing at the time he or she was seen to be perpetrating an act of physical activity while collecting accident compensation for a back injury. Investigators are not allowed to use cameras or video equipment so they have to take substantive detailed notes. So there were some challenges around why that was not also revisited at the time of the review of this particular Act. 
The next area of deficiency on the part of the previous Government was its inability to broaden the review to also cover increased powers of detention. It is to be hoped that the select committee will start to look at some of these additional areas that were not covered by the previous Government. It fell short of doing a proper analysis and review in regard to private investigators security personnel and the like. 
We have to look at outlining a security officer’s powers of arrest and detention. A private citizen has that capability so why not strengthen a security officer’s powers of arrest and detention as well? That should have been covered in the review. This debate is about what we allow private investigators and security officers to do and the amount of responsibility they have in line with the requirement to be licensed. That includes those people under them and I will talk a bit more about that in future. 
Members may well ask why these people need increased powers of detention. The answer to that is pretty simple actually—they are picking up the slack where police are delayed in attending violent incidents. More and more people are now using private security and that is their right and as this bill clearly indicates the sector will be licensed. The bill quite clearly indicates that the sector will be licensed. Clause 16 sets out that the following people will have to hold a licence: private investigators security technicians security consultants confidential document destruction agents property guards personal guards and crowd controllers. Those are just some of the categories. There will also be certificates for other personnel who might not hold such a responsible role within any of those categories. 
If we look at the case of security guards we have only to look at Manukau City which at one point employed security guards across the city on a 24-hour 7-days-a-week basis. That was to strengthen security measures in the area. The council needed front-line police with statutory powers rather than security guards who did not have those powers. In other Western countries such as Britain and Australia there are legislative provisions to extend powers of arrest and detention to adequately trained security officers. So the select committee might like to look at some of those aspects and see whether we would be justified in broadening out some aspects of this bill. 
There are some other issues to do with crimes perpetrated at night versus crimes perpetrated in the day between the hours of 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. If the offence is perpetrated by day the maximum punishment must not be less than 3 years’ imprisonment if a security officer is to apprehend an offender. I am sure that a lot of these issues will be brought forward at the select committee. 
One of the other flaws identified in the legislation was that the new bill makes provision for a 3-month trial period during which an employee need not undergo training. That may need to be looked at again in order to test the efficacy of that requirement. There may be some temptation to avoid expenditure on the provision of professional security officers and to rely on in-house security staff who do not have further additional training. 
If we consider why it is necessary to license these people we should look at the whole matter of police testing of the backgrounds etc. of people in charge who are in jobs of responsibility. For a start we can look at the case of a security guard in Dunedin who was jailed for 9 months after pleading guilty to the theft of $19500 from an employer. It was later found that he had a history of previous offending between 1992 and 1995. Licensing of those personnel is seriously important. I think the matter of licensing is one really good strength of the bill but it has to ensure that police checks can be done on all the people in those positions of responsibility. If there is an exemption I ask whether the ability for police checks to be carried out will still be covered. Another security guard was sentenced to 180 hours of community work 6 months’ supervision and fined $400 for theft of items from a film set. That guard was also convicted of cultivating cannabis at the same time. Those things might all have been revealed if the proper assessment and analysis of that person’s background was actually undertaken. 
The select committee needs to look at this bill in regard to strengthening the requirements in terms of those personnel which include private investigators security technicians crowd controllers personal guards and security guards. They are all in charge of very important aspects of the industry particularly security guards. If we look at what was allowed in terms of employment occurring outside the licensing regime employers are seriously limited in their ability to check the background of an employee. There have been incidents where some security guards have escaped the police and criminal checks that are so necessary. There were revelations that the Immigration Service hired bank and customs guards without work permits and with questionable security authorisations. They had been working for several weeks in banks and at customs clearing areas for cruise ship passengers on Auckland’s waterfront. Those guards had very questionable backgrounds so I cannot understate the importance of making sure that the particular flaws I have outlined in this bill are covered. I ask whether the certificates identified in this bill will give the ability for employers to do the full background checks necessary so that security guards who hold positions of responsibility and have access to personal property and information act responsibly and do not put at risk those assets or the information they have access to. 
I think it is important that the code of conduct has been mentioned. It is important that this bill progress through its stages that real consideration be given to it and that some of those areas that have been omitted are taken into consideration. I am sure they will be covered by submissions. I know having spoken to a private investigator recently that the use of cameras and videos is particularly important that such use needs to be seriously considered and that the bill needs to be broadened to allow that to occur. I also know that increased powers of detention should be seriously looked at having been so successful when adopted overseas. Categories for licensing and for certificates for those who do not yet have a licence but need to carry a certificate must be robust enough that adequate background analysis checks can be done. I am glad to support my most excellent colleague Richard Worth as he commends this bill to the House.