Parker David: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — First Reading 
Parker David: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2692] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 As prior speakers on behalf of the Labour Party have already indicated the Labour Party is supporting the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill in its current form. Coming towards the end of the first reading debate on this bill it is opportune that we have the chance to respond to some of the misguided comments that have been made particularly by Mr Garrett on behalf of the ACT Party. 
Mr Garrett stood up and gave a 10-minute speech saying that this bill was being supported by the ACT Party because the bill addressed the problem of the “Parnell Panther” acting through Rent-a-Bro as a debt collector standing over people to collect debts. He said it was absolutely abhorrent for Rent-a-Bro or the “Parnell Panther” through that organisation to be standing over people to collect debts. I agree that that ought not to happen; it is probably regulated against already by the criminal code. But I tell Mr Garrett that this bill does not affect debt collection. This bill does not do anything to control debt collection. It controls the acts of private investigation crowd control and some other things that are specified in the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act. But this bill does nothing to control debt collection. So those were hollow words from Mr Garrett and I am somewhat disappointed that he did not read the bill before he made those comments. He is a lawyer and I would have thought that his failure to read the bill was pretty readily apparent from the fact that there is no reference to debt collection in the explanatory note of the bill or in the legislation. It is pretty clear that he got that wrong. 
I also respond to the member for Tauranga’s response to Lianne Dalziel’s concerns about increased powers for security personnel and about the privatisation of some of those functions which could occur if powers that are currently held only by the police are extended to security personnel. That member may not have been in the House when his colleague Sandra Goudie gave her contribution which caused Lianne Dalziel’s concern. I share Lianne Dalziel’s concern as a consequence of what Sandra Goudie said to the House. She said the reason it is proposed that there will be a very long period for the select committee to consider the bill is so that the committee can consider whether there should be some quite major extensions to the powers of security guards and private investigators including consideration of whether they need to be given powers to take photographs and to conduct other surveillance techniques that are currently illegal for them and powers of arrest. 
Such extensions of power would be very very serious intrusions into civil liberties that I hold dear and that Lianne Dalziel holds dear. I would be most upset if a bill that presumably has a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vetting from the Attorney-General in its current form was to have those powers put in it at the select committee—powers that are not in the bill that is going out to people for them to look at and submit upon at the select committee. If there was to be a dramatic change to the powers of security guards and private investigators then it would be quite inappropriate for that to be done through this bill unless as Lianne Dalziel said a Supplementary Order Paper was presented through this Parliament to the select committee and there could then be separate submissions made upon it. I would be very sure that if that were the case—if there were to be major extensions to the powers conferred upon private investigators—we in the Labour Party would then oppose that. It is not justified; there is no need for it. 
There are plenty of instances in recent years to show why we should be concerned about granting those sorts of powers to private investigators which would reduce the civil liberties that we all enjoy in New Zealand. We ought to protect ourselves and protect ourselves assiduously against any unwise and unnecessary watering down of civil liberties. I think one of the examples that we heard from the Maori Party actually went in exactly the opposite way to that which the Maori Party intended. The Maori Party complained that the State inappropriately used powers under the prevention of terrorism legislation in the Ureweras in respect of Tuhoe. [ 
Interruption 
] The member may well be right that the State did use powers wrongly in that area if it had intended to use them under the prevention of terrorism legislation. But in the end of course the Crown did not bring charges under the prevention of terrorism legislation. How can that be seen as a justification for giving more powers to private investigators? I cannot follow the logic there. If we complain that the State already has too many powers or might use the powers that it has too much then how do we cure that problem by giving more powers of intervention further undermining civil liberties to someone else? I do not follow the logic of that I am afraid. 
In terms of recent examples of situations where we can see civil liberties may have been inappropriately intruded upon—the freedom of individuals to go about their lives free of inappropriate intrusion by private investigators—we need to think no further back than only about 3 years ago. About 3 years ago I was a Minister in the previous Government. The Exclusive Brethren who we know had some pretty shonky dealings at the election of 2005 did not just fund about $1 million of expenditure or up to $1 million of expenditure on the part of the National Party. I think that is to the shame of the National Party but that is not the point that I am focusing on now. The point is that after the election the Exclusive Brethren were funding private investigators. What were they funding those private investigators to do? They were funding private investigators to pursue their politically motivated witch-hunt and those private investigators were investigating members of Parliament and effectively harassing them. Whom were they investigating? They were investigating the Prime Minister Peter Davis Dr Michael Cullen me and David Benson-Pope. I remember these issues well because they affected me and my family. 
I will not agree that there is any need to give the right to private investigators to do those sorts of things any more than they can currently do them in law now. There is no need for them to have increased powers of surveillance. There is no need for them to have powers of arrest. There is no need to give them any more rights to intrude upon my privacy or the privacy of members opposite. [ 
Interruption 
] I know this bill was drafted by the Labour Party and it does not extend the powers of private investigators. We have a member of the National Party Amy Adams who says the bill does not do that. The member needs to talk to her colleague Sandra Goudie. [ 
Interruption 
] Well thank you. I am glad that someone has spoken to the member’s colleague Sandra Goudie. 
Debate interrupted.