Bridges Simon: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — First Reading 
Bridges Simon: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2691] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is very good to rise and speak in favour of the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. I start by talking about private investigators; I accept from the outset that this detailed comprehensive bill is not only about them. Indeed it regulates many others including security technicians security consultants and the like. A private investigator’s role is a tough one. They are often involved in fairly tedious watching work—for instance watching people potentially breaking the rules of Work and Income the accident compensation scheme or the like. However that is sprinkled with moments of excitement and some would say danger. 
As a young commercial litigation lawyer it was my pleasure to on occasion instruct private investigators to find individuals who had gone missing or to do work in relation to crash scenes and piece together what had happened. Like the Hon Pete Hodgson who said that he had been an amateur super-sleuth in the past I remember doing the work myself many a time when a case would not justify the hiring of a private investigator: looking to find an individual and then dropping documents on him or her in various places. There is a point to these stories by the way: it is to prove the importance of regulation in this area. 
I also recall instructing private investigators in the leafy suburbs of the Hon Rodney Hide’s electorate to find an individual and serve him with documents. The difficulties with that task were immense given the individual’s electronic gates. What investigators would do in this situation and what this particular individual did was to stick a rubbish bin in front of the gates so that the individual had to get out and therefore could be served. In fact the individual drove at the private investigator and I have to say that it did not have a particularly good ending. As I say it can be a tough and quite responsible job and it calls for regulation. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What else did you instruct? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Well it is funny you should say—I am sorry Mr Deputy Speaker; I did not mean to bring you into the debate. 
I recall older colleagues providing many a war story in relation to private investigators working in the times before modern divorce when adultery had to be proven. This required quite a bit of work by private investigators—indeed it was a staple of their work. Evidence needed to be collected and this would involve the private investigator sitting outside Cobb and Co. or the like watching what happened going back to the address and sitting outside watching the couple go inside watching the lights go on watching the couple go round to the bedroom with—again—the lights going on and then often having to go outside under the window. I am told that there would be evidence in court of what the private investigator heard in listening to the said adulterous act. So as I say—and I make a serious point—regulation of this often tedious but sometimes dangerous and exciting job is required. 
This bill does more than just regulate private investigators; it regulates a whole host of individuals employed in the security industry. It is an important bill—and I accept that it was originally brought in by Labour and the Hon Clayton Cosgrove—because we have not seen a revisiting of the 1974 Private Investigators and Security Guards Act since its enactment. It is not before time that we come back to this legislation. National is in favour of regulation where it is appropriate: not regulation for regulation’s sake but regulation that has a real purpose. 
This bill does four broad things. Firstly it weeds out the inappropriate regulation from the industry. As I say when these people are doing sensitive often delicate and sometimes dangerous work regulation is very important and a comprehensive licensing regime is brought in through this bill. Secondly it trains the industry adequately. Again when we are dealing with often sensitive matters training in this area is particularly important. Thirdly it incorporates a code of ethics—that is important. Finally it provides for offences and penalties and lifts those penalties substantially to provide a deterrent effect. We can understand why that is important given that this area has not been revisited since 1974—quite some time ago and indeed before those divorce laws that I talked about earlier were changed. The licensing is important. Members will be glad to know that I am not going to take the House through any of the details at this point but I will say that the legislation extends the old 1974 Act in quite comprehensive ways. That is all to the good. 
Next we move to training. I note that this was an area where there simply was no provision under the old 1974 Act. I am sure the House will agree that this was a major shortcoming in the legislation. When we think about the various players in the industry who are regulated here including bouncers—called something like “crowd controllers” in this bill—we find that they are often in high conflict and as I say sometimes dangerous situations where they encounter either potential or real violence that can be literally life-threatening. I argue that it is beyond doubt that they need training to de-escalate and turn things around and that is what this bill provides for. As I say the bill provides for a code of ethics. That is important so that private investigators do not do things that they should not do. I heard the Hon Lianne Dalziel’s speech and her fears that this bill might somehow bring in private policing through the back door. That is not right at all. When one looks at this code of ethics one sees that it is very important that private investigators appreciate that they are not private policemen; they do not have the powers that police officers have. They do not have the court’s permission for surveillance or for searching premises. The National Party takes privacy rights and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act very seriously indeed. That is why one of the four primary purposes of the bill—that is to bring in a code of ethics—is particularly important. I mentioned the offences and the penalties and said there was a need for modernisation of the 1974 legislation and for higher more deterrent-based penalties. 
In summary this is a good bill. It is a worthy bill. Private investigators and others who will be regulated by this bill are often involved in tedious—some would say boring—jobs but ones that are sprinkled with danger and with aspects that need regulation licensing training and the like. So I commend this bill to the House.