Ardern Jacinda: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — Third Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:14033] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I think those comments made by Simon Bridges might be the first time that I have heard a politician name-drop himself in this Chamber. I almost feel obliged to defend my poor old dear— 
Hon Member 
: Paul Henry. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: —no grandmother but I am afraid I cannot. It is true that my grandmother watches  
Breakfast 
 so that she can see “lovely” Simon every Thursday but she is a wonderful wonderful human being none the less. 
First I acknowledge the comments made by Keith Locke. [ 
Interruption 
] I will not be baited into talking about Simon Bridges any further. It was a really interesting discussion on risk which is something in which I have a bit of a personal interest. I am interested in the consequences that occur when we as a society do not tolerate certain levels of risk and when we do not have adequate levels of accountability. That gives rise to an increase in bureaucracy and an increasingly litigious society. So I think that the role of risk our tolerance for it and the really important role of accountability are the real issues because when they are lacking they give rise to bureaucracy. But that is a whole different issue. 
Today we are discussing the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. There are just two things I will mention before I go into a little more detail. The Associate Minister of Justice the Hon Nathan Guy pointed out that this bill has been a while in the making. I acknowledge the work that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove originally did on this bill. It required a bit of work and that is probably proven by the fact that it sat with the Justice and Electoral Committee for a full 11 months. If the National Government wishes to criticise the length of time it has taken that criticism should fall evenly on both sides of the House. It is not something that I would like to see rushed; it is an area that we will not be revisiting for quite some time. In fact I would almost extend that to the point that although we have pressing events coming up like the Rugby World Cup I am loath to see us make significant changes that undermine some of the important things that we are obliged to balance such as issues of privacy. In rushing through this bill we have compromised that issue of privacy through our approach to clause 66 which David Parker has already spoken about and I will spend a little more time on that. 
I noted that the Minister said that members of the industry greeted this legislation warmly at one of their conferences today. I can understand that because originally as it was introduced it was much more prohibitive than the current bill before us now. So I have absolutely no doubt why they welcomed the bill but I worry that we are still leaving a bit too much open in the final drafting of the code of conduct. 
There are three areas that I want to touch on quickly: licensing training and the issue of clause 66 which I would like to talk about in just a little more detail. Labour stated from the outset that we understood that clause 66 restricted the ability of private investigators to take photographs or make recordings of subjects without those individuals’ permission. We accepted that perhaps that was going a bit too far and was probably prohibiting those investigators in the job they were doing. But we did not accept that it was adequate simply to delete that provision altogether. Our preference was to err on the side of caution particularly given that as we have stated time and time again the Law Commission is looking at a piece of work that touches on that area. I would have thought that the National Government would be interested in at least two things: first providing consistency in the way we address privacy issues in this House and second what happens if we remove clause 66 put in a code of conduct as the Government has proposed and then find that the Law Commission comes back and proposes something completely different. That inconsistency—having to rejig again if we find ourselves wanting to implement changes recommended by the Law Commission—will impose a cost on the industry and will have an impact on those working in the area. I would have thought that we would pay a little more attention to that level of instability within the industry. So there were greater things at play and I think a little more patience with this issue would have been helpful. Keeping clause 66 in place for the time being and perhaps having an omnibus bill that dealt with privacy issues later down the track would have been a better way to deal with this situation. 
I want to speak on the issue of training. The greater training of those working in this area is something we wholeheartedly endorse because private investigators and security guards are picking up work that may not have been contracted out to the private sector as much as it is now. Some private companies are already investing in their people to make sure that they are up to scratch and well trained but some are not which relates to the purpose of having this set out in legislation and having a licensing regime in the first place. 
We are particularly supportive of clause 56C because it gives a level of discretion to the licensing authority to give someone a licence even if he or she should be technically disqualified. The reason that is particularly important is that some people may have operated in this area for a significant number of years may have proved themselves to be worthy members of the industry may have done the job well but may very well have something in their past that precludes them from entering into this industry were they to do it today. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Such as? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I will not go into individual examples in this particular case but I believe in the principle of a clean slate which is something that some other members of this House have been slightly inconsistent on. So I think that clause 56C is important and I hope that discretion is used wisely. 
I want to touch quickly on the licensing issue. We are probably talking about a doubling of the number of people who will need to come under this licensing regime because the Act will extend the number of classifications that will be required to be licensed. But there is a balance in that as well. As a former member of the Regulations Review Committee I see from time to time the costs imposed on those who are working in licensed industries through relicensing and the frequency of relicensing. The efforts to keep costs down for those working in this sector by requiring relicensing only every 5 years rather than every year is a good thing. 
We know that the Rugby World Cup is the reason why the Minister put through his Supplementary Order Paper moving the commencement date of this legislation from 1 December 2010 to 1 April 2011. But I am interested in the fact that the Minister has also given himself some extra discretionary powers to recommend an exemption to certification if the Minister is satisfied that the benefit to be gained by requiring people to hold certificates is outweighed by the public interest in ensuring that there are sufficient private security personnel working at a major event. It is quite obvious why that provision is there but I would have liked to see that provision with a sunset clause attached to it or for it to be time-limited because I do not think it is something that we want to use too often. I think that by and large those who are technically covered within the criteria of needing to be licensed should be licensed because they are then captured by a number of other provisions around training and around penalties for not fulfilling the requirements of the legislation. So I would have liked to see a time limit on that. 
Clause 113C provides for a transition period for people who are in business and I think it is right that we have a transition period. Instead of the date being set for 1 June 2010 it will now be appointed by Order in Council. I think that where possible it is good practice of this House to avoid those things being open-ended and to take a leadership role and set down those dates. That is also something I would have liked to see. 
All in all it is good legislation bar our ongoing dispute over clause 66. I look forward ultimately to seeing the recommendations of the Law Commission on privacy issues.