Quinn Paul: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — In Committee 
Quinn Paul: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:666;Page:13862] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to take a short call on the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill because I have listened intently as the debate has progressed. It seems to me that this is a classic argument. Let us be clear that the real issue here is what was clause 66 and the Supplementary Order Paper that has been submitted by the Opposition. In respect of that particular clause which all the previous speakers in the Opposition have referred to it seems to me that it is a matter of looking at two sides of a mirror and of deciding in fact which side of that mirror we want to be on. On one side of the mirror we talk about the police having certain powers but the Opposition—I think it was pointed out by Mr Parker—has claimed that a group of private investigators has more capability for doing surveillance than the police. On the other side of the mirror is the general public who in fact are able to do carte blanche what they like. 
Simon Bridges 
: Journalists perverts. 
PAUL QUINN 
: My colleague Mr Bridges has proposed that journalists and perverts are part of that group. So they can like “Joe Public” take any surveillance device that Mr Cunliffe covered and he gave a pretty broad and full description of the types of technology. I agree with him on the fact that technology is always advancing. But the fact of the matter is that “Joe Public” can actually do it. So the view we have taken is that if in fact we want to restrict freedoms then we need to be able to do it from a principled approach and until we have an effective mechanism that actually can provide the sorts of safeties that one might want then we are not prepared to restrict a group of people who in wearing their “Joe Public” hat are still able to do what they want to do. 
The arguments are thoroughly canvassed in the Justice and Electoral report. If honourable members would turn to page 13 of the select committee report this particular clause is talked about for two pages which in my experience is a very long description and shows how carefully the select committee considered this. We went through the options and yes we noted that the Law Commission was doing something. But in the end we came down to the fact that unless we could have a better system then it was not for Parliament to restrict people’s general freedoms. So that is why from this side of the Chamber we went for a code of conduct. We believe that a code of conduct properly worked through by the industry under the direction of the Minister will come up with something sufficiently robust. Members on this side have had positive experiences of self-regulation which is why we are on this side of the argument. 
The amendment submitted by the Opposition in the name of David Parker for all intents and purposes actually puts back into the bill the old clause 66. So in terms of my contribution to this debate I say that we have canvassed those arguments. They are well documented and well argued in the select committee report. I refer the members on the opposite side to the select committee report to understand why the select committee came to its very good decision. Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 162 in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 162 in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 3 be agreed to: 
to insert new clause 65: 
65Private investigator or employee not to take photographs or make recordings without consent 
(1)No person may in the course of or in connection with the business of a private investigator— 
(a)take or cause to be taken or use or accept for use any photograph cinematographic picture or videotape recording of another person without the prior consent in writing of that person; or 
(b)by any mechanical device record or cause to be recorded the voice or speech of another person without the prior consent in writing of that person. 
(2)Nothing in subsection (1) applies to the taking or using by any person of any photograph for the purposes of identifying any other person on whom any legal process is to be or has been served. 
(3)A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $20000. 
(4)No photograph or cinematographic picture or videotape recording taken or other recording made in contravention of subsection (1) is admissible as evidence in any civil proceedings. 
(5)This section my be repealed by Order in Council provided that no such Order in Council may be promulgated before legislation regulating surveillance by non-Government agencies has been considered by this House.