Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill

For most Maori, the concept of a Private Investigator is about as real as the lifestyle of PI Magnum - the television show which featured a Private Investigator living in an island paradise, working when he wanted to, having access to a constant stream of beautiful women and an overflowing beer fridge; driving a Ferrari 308 GTS and bumbling from one adventure to the next.

 

Whereas the relationship of Maori to security guards is so well established in fact that a well know artist, Michael Parekowhai has even created some fifteen brown fibreglass figures posing as security guards.

 

The theme throughout the work is of the stereotypical Maori male, standing guard outside bars, clubs and social events. It is a figure that we can all quickly identify with. It is a study in staunch.

 

This Bill then puts the two categories together – dealing to the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act 1974.

 

It is putting in place measures to ensure both PIs and security guards are both appropriately qualified to undertake their work; and that their conduct is consistent with the public interest.

 

The important distinguishing point in this Bill is, however, not just restricted to Private Investigators and Security Guards.

 

In reviewing the licensing requirements for the security industry, the Bill now brings within its fold, a much wider group:

Þ private investigators,

Þ security technicians – those who fix burglar alarms or security cameras;

Þ security consultants

Þ the agents who offer confidential document destruction;

Þ property guards;

Þ Personal guards; and

Þ Crowd controllers – what we might more commonly call bouncers.

 

While the scope of people targeted is broadened, there is more flexibility around the requirements for licensing renewal and certification. Indeed it is a rather massive jump from the expectation of being subject to an annual renewal; to now every five years.

 

The other major aspect of this Bill, outside of the licensing changes, relates to the policy goal that the conduct of those in the security sector is consistent with the public interest.

 

For a classic example of this, we need only to think of the events that shook New Zealand in October 2007. QC Peter Williams was one of the first off to the block to call for Private Investigators to look into the facts of the police raids that took place in Ruatoki under the auspices of the Suppression of Terrorism Act.

 

In speaking out, Williams challenged the state, Ma te ture te ture e patu – Let the law beat itself to death.

 

His urgent recommendation was that all New Zealanders should be concerned at the breach of their rights that unfolded in the nation of Tuhoe. He suggested that there should be some private investigators to get a battery of statements, and to bring action to the High Court for exemplary damages and compensation for all those who were badly treated.

And so we saw, with the events of October 2007, perhaps a new environment when private investigators might well be considered a useful investment for Maori to call on, for support and expert advice.

 

This Bill then makes an important start in regulating the private security sector.

 

It brings into being a conversation about professionalism; integrity and respect – values which are at the very essence of any aspect of the security industry.

 

The Maori Party believes however, that further amendments are needed to ensure appropriate standards of conduct are set and maintained.

 

As a core requisite of standards of conduct, we would recommend that anti-racism training for private security personnel needs to be included in a code of ethics when developed and implemented.

 

This Bill introduces more objective criteria in determining who will get licensed. The Licensing Authority will retain discretion to assess suitability of applicants; but the prevailing emphasis is on consistent values and standards by which we would come to regard this profession.

 

Within these criteria we would hope that cultural competency would be elevated to be a significant component of the registration of competent and licensed Private Investigators and Security Guards.

 

We will be looking forward to more detail coming out at the select committee phase around the licensing process – namely, who gets approved.

 

While certain categories of people under both the current Act and the provisions of the Bill are disqualified from applying, there needs to be a more robust mechanism than conviction of certain offences to determine if someone is suitable to be a license holder or to be certified.

 

And so we will be strongly recommending those who have had experience with this sector – those who are currently practising within it; those who have left the industry; or those who have been at the receiving end of the management and operations of the personnel to be involved.

 

For instance, if there are people who have had unsatisfactory experiences with security guards; or who bear resentment towards the activities of a private investigator, it is vital that we hear their views alongside those who may be more positively inclined.

 

A key principle for the Maori Party in coming to this Bill, is that we want to be absolutely certain that the power of security staff is appropriately balanced to ensure the rights and safety of the public.

 

Clarity around these standards is critical to ensure both the credibility of the security industry while also adhering to due protection of the public.

 

At the heart of the issue is the role of power and control.

 

While security workers, and other personnel across the sector don’t have the same power to remove a person’s liberty as does a police officer, they do hold aspects of power in their roles – and need to be duly responsible with that power.

 

Feedback that we have picked up from the sector is a desire to here see a code of conduct actually developed and used to establish and maintain industry standards

 

This has never been done as yet, even though there has been provision in the 1974 Act.

 

A code of conduct would provide a mechanism by which to monitor and review the standards of practice / adherence to a code of conduct of license and certificate holders.

 

This will be especially important given the licensing period is now for 5 years, and also be able to better regulate the conduct of those who are already license and certificate holders.

 

There are many issues and experiences that come with this Bill that will benefit from more intense scrutiny at the select committee stage. In light of the need for more information and more analysis, the Maori Party is happy to support this Bill at this, its first reading.