Bridges Simon: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — Second Reading 
Bridges Simon: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13714] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to take a call on the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. I will pick up on a couple of the comments made by the Associate Minister of Justice Nathan Guy in this second reading. He spoke quite rightly about how the bill modernises this area of law. We have legislation that is a bit over 35 years old and of course it is quite right that we modernise this area. As I think Chris Hipkins said and I agree with him on this point we are dealing with an area where technology plays a very substantial role. The use of new surveillance devices recording devices and computers and the ability of people to listen in and observe what others do has never been greater. We often hear speeches in this House about how the law is being modernised but that is particularly important in relation to this legislation given the nature of what it is dealing with which is security and investigation and given the technological advances we have seen in this area. 
I think for example of a story I read in the  
New Zealand Herald  
earlier this week. The chief press officer for the current British Prime Minister is involved in a series of stories because at one time he was the editor of  
News of the World 
. His position is that he was not aware of this but at the time he was editor the paper was tapping in in quite a substantial way to phone calls of members of Parliament. It was listening in to what they were saying. It was also listening in to ministerial phone calls. For example one of the alleged cases was an alleged affair by the then Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott. We can see what technological advances mean in this kind of area. Investigations can become quite intrusive. As I say the law needs modernising and this bill does just that. 
I will pick up on another point that the Minister made. He said that we are striking the right balance here. Again we hear that comment quite a bit but again it very much is the case here that on the one hand if we get things wrong we can have a lack of security and real problems at that end of the ledger in our society. On the other hand if we are not careful we can have as I think some would argue they do in the United Kingdom a surveillance State where one cannot go anywhere without being caught by security closed-circuit television and the like. In a very real way we are putting forward a balanced bill and a bill that modernises the area of law here. 
It would be true to say that at the Justice and Electoral Committee the debate on clause 66 was one of the most interesting debates we had. I was going to say it was heated and controversial but I would not characterise it in that way. The debate was thoughtful and certainly I thought the points raised by the likes of the Hon David Parker were well made although in the final analysis I did not agree with them. Clause 66 is the clause that carried over the provisions from the old Private Investigators and Security Guards Act of 1974 prohibiting private investigators from taking or using photographs or recordings of any kind. I can understand the position taken by Labour colleagues on the select committee that this provision should be carried over because such powers can be quite intrusive. 
But ultimately the position I came to as did other colleagues was that if we took that to its logical conclusion we would be getting into the silly situation where private investigators could not do something that anyone else could do—that individuals private citizens and actually journalists could do although some would say that journalists do not always maintain the highest ethical standards. We were getting ourselves into a silly situation particularly when as we have done we have put in the provision to have and a requirement for a code of conduct for private investigators so that they will be beholden to higher standards than private citizens will be in this area when taking photographs and doing visual recordings. 
Let me just flesh out the point I am making. I was very mindful in the select committee of the situations I had seen in court cases. I must confess that at the time I did not realise the reason for this—it was only at the select committee that I did. In accident compensation cases and Work and Income fraud cases where the police were not involved private investigators would be used to do the legwork and to investigate whether the complaint had any substance. We would often come to court where I can think of particular examples of a private investigator someone privately paid and in his or her own firm who would not be presenting photographs but would laboriously go through what he or she had observed. I had never really thought about why that was the case but the reason of course is that those private investigators came under the old law—and we are changing it—and they were prohibited from taking photographs and video recordings. 
I will give one example of a case where a person with it was said a very bad back was receiving accident compensation and was playing golf at a golf course nearly every single day. In fact he had put in his score cards and was one of the best golfers at the course. Common sense would suggest that all the private investigator should have been doing was taking some photographs or maybe making a video recording of this guy swinging at the ball and playing some pretty good golf. As I say under the old law private investigators could not do that and that to me seems silly. 
I will give another example of man who was receiving accident compensation who had one of the biggest private lawnmowing businesses in the Bay of Plenty. Again it was difficult to prove. A person can swear black and blue that he or she has not been mowing lawns and has a crook back but in fact that person has been mowing lawns every other day and the private investigator who under this new law will be governed by a strict code of conduct cannot take photographs and the like. 
I contrast that again with the situation we have had and will continue to have of any citizens out on the street being able to take photographs and do what private investigators who are beholden to a higher standard cannot do. 
To speak of another  
News of the World 
 example we get into cases like the one involving Fergie as she is known. She was video-recorded by journalists and caught in a very compromising position. The situation in this country would have been that everyone else could do that but private investigators would not be able to because their code of conduct would probably prohibit that sort of unethical entrapment. 
I come back to the point that we are modernising the law and we have balanced legislation. In respect of the interesting provisions in clause 66 although I accept the points made by the Labour members as far as they go that privacy is important and that we need to be balanced and responsible in this area I think it is right that we have a law whereby private investigators can for legitimate purposes and often very much in the public interest take photographs and video recordings to be used in court and the like if they are admissible because they will be beholden to a strict code of conduct. This will mean that they should have the ability to do this in the public interest.