Borrows Chester: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:666;Page:13853] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 A number of points have been made about the need for the refurbishment of this legislation bearing in mind the changes in technology over the last 35 years or so. It is interesting to note that almost every area of core business of policing for instance is now replicated in some form by the security industry and done privately. So the need for that vetting process as the public perceive it is such that these people need to be certificated. They need to go through a vetting process and the public need to be reassured that these people are worthy of their trust. A number of those points were made by the previous speaker. 
Just how far the need for that certification will extend really relates to its impact on the public and the public going about their private business. There has been some discussion for instance about clause 66—which was deleted by the select committee—and in respect of who is able to use video camera surveillance or still photographs. We know that private investigators are currently unable to do that regardless of the fact they have been through that police-vetting process and that they are certificated personnel. Yet members of the public can do that any time they want. 
The point is often made that private investigators have the knowledge the skills probably and the motivation to do things that are on the edge of what is and is not acceptable because they are doing it for reward whereas the public are frequently motivated only by their own interest or by some particular hobby horse they may be on at any one time. 
I need to point out though that unscrupulous members of the security journalist and other professions are currently in a position to manipulate members of the public—so they can do things that certificated private investigators cannot do. It seems to me to be ridiculous that the public can be used in an unscrupulous way without any sort of regulation at all. Hence the Government’s preference for a code of conduct to be regulated and for that provision to replace the clause 66 model and I think that is a valid response bearing in mind where technology has gone. 
I would like to cover a point that was raised by the previous speaker Chris Hipkins. He asked whether there was a need for community patrol people who are frequently sitting in police stations monitoring closed-circuit television cameras that are used to monitor the public as they go about their business—for instance late-night Thursdays Fridays and Saturdays. We have to remember that the community patrol people who are sitting in police stations and watching those closed-circuit television cameras at the moment have been through a police-vetting process. Otherwise they would not be allowed to sit inside a police station and have access to or be in the vicinity of confidential information. 
The second point is that although a number of those closed-circuit television cameras are mounted on private property they are almost invariably looking into what is public property—if not entirely publicly owned property public in terms of section 2 of the Summary Offences Act for instance. That section covers land that is private but accessible by the public whether or not it is right to do so. For instance the closed-circuit television camera may be looking over car-parks the backs of hotels alleyways or into pieces of land that are frequently the subject of intrusion or trespass by drunken idiots whom we might want to monitor. The community patrol members who are monitoring those video cameras are not required to be certificated at the moment but they have been through a vetting process and are generally operating under the fairly close supervision of members of the police who are on duty at the time. I think it was important to point out those few measures. 
I commend the bill to the Committee bearing in mind that it is not only dragging the legislation kicking and screaming into the 21st century—it is long overdue—but also taking account of technologies that have come into vogue. Those technologies are now easily accessible to the public whereas they were not accessible in the past. This bill will provide a greater degree of scrutiny over those people who have some power and authority over us—for instance private investigators and security personnel. Thank you.