Sepuloni Carmel: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — In Committee 
Sepuloni Carmel: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:666;Page:13854] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 Labour will be supporting this bill but some concerns have arisen for me and I shall put those concerns and some questions to the Minister in the chair the Hon Nathan Guy. In the Chamber last night Mr Harawira said that a lot of people undertaking the work that is explicitly outlined in this bill are Maori and Pacific so we are looking after our workforce and making sure that this bill addresses their needs. I feel that the tone of the bill relates largely to the protection of the public which is definitely an aspect but it also legislates that training must be put into place to ensure that the people undertaking this work are not only accountable to the public but better equipped to undertake these positions. I just wonder whether there is some scope for change to ensure that that aspect comes across in the bill and that we get to see that it is not just for the protection of the public because a lot of these people undertaking these roles are good people. The vast majority have had no problems; the vast majority have been safe in their roles and have done a service to the public. So it is good that the tone of the bill illustrates that fact and illustrates that the bill will protect them so they can do their job well and safely. 
I went through the bill and I might be wrong and I asked a couple of colleagues but I could not find a regulatory impact statement. I ask the Minister whether a regulatory impact statement goes along with this bill and if so where it is. I could not find it. 
The National Government has introduced a Supplementary Order Paper which will exempt certain groups from the bill and in reading it I wondered about Pacific wardens and Maori wardens and whether they would be exempted from the bill keeping in mind that they are volunteers I think. Members will let me know if I am wrong. A lot of them take on the roles of crowd controller and property guard. That could be considered to be part of what this legislation is pushing for. So I want to know from the Minister whether those two groups—Pacific and Maori wardens—will be exempted from this legislation and also what other groups he has in mind that will be exempted from it. 
Initially when we were debating this bill in the House the other night I had a concern about the level of discretion that the licensing authority would have with regard to granting a licence or certificate to security guards crowd controllers bouncers—any people who fall into those categories. I have gone through the bill and it seems broad but it seems that there will be a level of discretion. I would also like confirmation about that from the Minister. 
One example that was sent through to me was of someone who in his early years committed a very very serious crime—that being murder—at the age of 16. He then went to jail at 17. But that murder was committed in the early 1990s; he has been out of jail for the last 8 years. He has not committed any crime ever since. He has been practising as a security guard at a bar ever since then. So I wonder whether the authority’s discretion would extend to that sort of situation in terms of allowing him to continue to practise considering that he has done so for 8 years and despite the fact that that will be on his record for life. I wonder whether in those cases—although I am sure they will be few—the licensing authority will use its discretion to allow those people to continue and also to allow them to gain the qualification necessary in these particular roles. 
It needs to keep in mind that some of those people have been working in those jobs for long periods of time. For some of them as in the example I have just used that is the only occupation that that person has ever known. So I wonder what level of discretion the licensing authority will have. I discussed with someone earlier the case I am talking about now. It was raised with me that that would be the exception rather than the norm. But I think the licensing authority needs to have the ability to make decisions on a case-by-case basis and to have the discretion to grant an exception for exceptional cases like the one I am discussing. 
I will discuss the provisions in general. Labour supports the bill. It was introduced to the House by Mr Cosgrove in 2008. It is unfortunate that it has taken a while to push through. I understand that the rationale for pushing it through now is to have legislation in place by June 2011 so that all of the provisions can be put into place before the Rugby World Cup. I think that is a good move but I also think it could have been done earlier especially when the safety of the public was the initial reason for this bill. It is something that perhaps the Government should have pushed along with a little more quickly. But that is OK; it is going through now. 
The other issue raised earlier by my colleague Jacinda Ardern was our concern that National members of the select committee deleted the clause that would make it an offence for private investigators to photograph or to record people without consent. That is a very real concern that we on this side of the House have. We hope that the other side will address that. I think we have a Supplementary Order Paper up to address that—[ 
Interruption 
]—yes. We hope that the other side of the House will support it. Thank you very much.