Lees-Galloway Iain: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — Third Reading 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:14036] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 As has been stated a number of times in the debate on the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill this evening the world is a different place than it was in 1974. It is different in terms of society in the ways that Keith Locke described and it is different in terms of the technological advances. Some of them are quite significant. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What were you doing in 1974? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I was barely even a glint in the back of the thoughts of my daddy’s eye or whatever we say—1974 was well before my time. The grey hair might be somewhat misleading. 
Simon Bridges 
: How old are you? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: It is my 32nd birthday this Saturday. I ask whether Mr Bridges wants to come. 
I will come back to the bill. The law needed updating. Not only did we see that from the review of the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act 1974 but also it was somewhat precipitated by a specific event: the death in 2005 of Blenheim man Cedric Joyce after he was restrained by a bouncer. Clearly there was a need to address issues that the legislation as it stood was not sufficient to tackle. 
Essentially we have legislation that endorses the work of the vast majority of people working who will operate under this legislation. It really is there only to ensure that the people who are operating at the margins are brought— 
Simon Bridges 
: Did you borrow that tie from Ross Robertson? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: It is a family heirloom. The bill was brought in to tidy up the people who are operating at the margins of the law. As so often is the case with legislation the vast majority of people will probably not notice any difference. They are already doing the training as they should be. They are already ensuring that staff have the competency levels that are required in this legislation. This legislation brings us in line with the UK and Australia so it is best practice around the world and very solid legislation. 
A number of people have addressed clause 66. I do not think anybody could articulate the issues that the Opposition has with clause 66 any better than David Parker. I suspect that we will address this matter again when the Law Commission presents its thoughts in this area. It is perhaps disappointing that the Government has not heeded calls from the Opposition to retain the status quo until the Law Commission reports back but we will have another opportunity to address that matter in the future. 
The other thing that a lot of people have mentioned this evening is that the Rugby World Cup is coming up soon and it is important to have this legislation in place before then. It is important to New Zealand’s reputation that bouncers crowd controllers and people who are working at those events are well trained and know how to deal with difficult situations. It is important not just for events but also for people who are just going out on a Friday or a Saturday night to know that the people who are there to look after them are well trained competent and capable of defusing some of the tense and potentially violent situations that sometimes arise when alcohol is thrown into the mix. 
I am sure that most members of the House will have witnessed some of the old-school tactics that bouncers used. I have witnessed situations where they seemed to be deliberately inflaming the situation so that the police would get involved. That was the way they would deal with someone who was being difficult. I think that under this legislation we will see everybody coming into line and using more sensible more up-to-date methods of trying to maintain good order both at events and in social situations in central business districts where people just want to have a good time but sometimes a little too much alcohol tips things over and brings the balance on to the wrong side. 
Having said that this legislation simply endorses the good practices out there it is surprising that clause 66 is being changed in the way that it is. It is absolutely about people who will push the boundaries and who will seek to operate on the margins shall we say in areas that most of us would consider to be fairly unethical. So there is a bit of an inconsistency. Essentially this bill is trying to tidy up some fringe issues but it is opening up a whole new area that could be potentially exploited by people who are not of great ethical or moral standing. Having said that I support what all of our colleagues around the House have said tonight. Generally speaking this is good legislation. The problems with it will probably be addressed in other circumstances in the future. The Opposition is very happy to support the third reading of this bill. 
Bill read a third time.