Corruption report could impact on new national licensing system for private security industry
by Ernie Davitt, National Affairs Editor, ASM
With the deadline for introducing a possible national licensing system for the private security industry drawing near, a recent report by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) could have a far-reaching impact on the outcome.
Late last year the ICAC recommended prosecutions be launched against the directors of a major private security training academy after it investigated allegations that improper assistance was being provided to candidates undergoing training to upgrade skills.
Allegations of false representation against directors were also made in relation to certificates of competency which were allegedly being given to candidates in the absence of proper competency assessment.
One of the main recommendations of the ICAC report was that the NSW Police Commissioner should assume ultimate responsibility for security industry integrity-related functions including corruption prevention, corruption risk management, and fraud and corruption investigation and detection.
Just before Christmas, the NSW Police Minister, Michael Daley, told Parliament new regulations allowing security guards to carry high-calibre handguns and shotguns were signed off by the State’s Lieutenant Governor on advice from the Executive Council.
In an explanatory note about the regulations, he said the change would enable security guards who had firearms licences to possess and use prohibited pistols or certain shotguns “but only if expressly authorised to do so by the Commissioner”.
The new arrangements are designed to allow security guards involved in carrying large amounts of cash to better protect themselves and the money they are transporting against a rising number of armed attacks.
The new regulations have been widely condemned by civil liberties groups and the anti-gun lobby, but welcomed by the security industry.
Fundamental change needed, says ASIAL
Australia’s peak security industry body, the Australian Security Industry Association (ASIAL), welcomed the ICAC report and said it highlighted the need for fundamental change in the existing accreditation process.
ASIAL CEO Bryan de Caires said that the role performed by the private security industry was fundamental to the day-to-day security and operation of the NSW economy.
It was critical that there was an effective regulatory regime that ensured a strong and professional security industry, he said.
ASM understands the ICAC report is being closely looked at by other States and Territories and could have an impact on the final outcome of the Council of Australian Governments’ (COAG’s) recommendation that a possible national licensing system for the security industry should be developed by the middle of this year.
COAG had asked the Ministerial Committee on Policing and Emergency Management, in consultation with the Security Industry Regulators Forum, to undertake further work for introducing a possible national system for security industry licensing by mid 2010.
Late last year COAG agreed to further reforms as part of its initiative aimed at harmonising private security regulations across Australia. This followed an investigation by the Federal Government’s Australian Crime Commission into corruption in the private security industry.
As a result of this, the States and Territories will be introducing common training standards for guards, and common background checking for all types of security licences.
The reforms are aimed at improving the probity, competence and skills of security personnel and the mobility of security industry licences across jurisdictions.
“Currently, we have what is essentially a paper-based accreditation system that does not sufficiently audit the delivery of quality and consistent security personnel training,” Mr de Caires said.
“Given that responsibility for training standards and accreditation falls under several organisations, inherent vulnerabilities have been exposed by the ICAC investigation.”
He said accreditation of registered training organisations (RTOs) was the responsibility of the NSW Vocational Education & Training Accreditation Board (VETAB) and the Security Industry Registry (SIR) of the NSW Police Force.
“Clearly, significant changes are needed to improve training delivery standards, as is a stronger co-regulatory partnership between regulators and industry, focusing on more effective compliance and enforcement strategies,” Mr de Caires said.
“We strongly support the provision of additional resources to the SIR and VETAB that will allow them to properly implement training practice accreditation and increase the level of accountability of the RTOs.
“ASIAL is committed to competency-based training and the national training package (CPP07). It’s important to note that over the past decade, the security industry has experienced a period of profound growth, which has brought with it challenges in maintaining quality and standards.
“The industry’s ability to meet these challenges has been exacerbated by the market’s focus on the lowest price rather than best value. What this has created, particularly in the manpower sector, is an operating environment where profit margins are wafer thin. Unsurprisingly, in order to compete, some unscrupulous operators have succumbed to the temptation to cut corners and consequently tarnish the reputation of the industry as a whole.
“We know that quality comes at a premium; it’s the best value versus lowest price approach.
“It is disappointing that significant investment in training for new entrants into the industry has not resulted in the anticipated quality improvements, an outcome which has not been helped
by inconsistent and often poor training delivery.
“ASIAL has identified a critical need for high-quality, industry-specific training, coupled with a stronger co-regulatory partnership between SIR, VETAB and approved security industry associations.
“We also believe that all approved security industry associations need to be far more accountable in their actions and responsibilities, particularly in the area of compliance.”
Mr de Caires said ASIAL was committed to working in partnership with the NSW Government and accredited training bodies to ensure the industry took greater responsibility for its own regulations.
Late last year the ICAC made corrupt conduct findings against 10 individuals and recommended that the NSW Police Commissioner assume ultimate responsibility for security industry integrity-related functions.
In its Report on corruption in the provision and certification of security industry training, the Commission found that the industry’s licence upgrade process failed in its objective to weed out incompetent and undesirable registered training organisations and security officers.
False certificates issued
The report said that between 1 September 2007 and 9 March 2009, 28 RTOs issued nearly 45,000 training certificates. One of those RTOs issued around 26 per cent of the certificates. The Commission found that some candidates enrolled in that company’s security training courses were provided answers in advance of written tests to assess their competency in security-related activities, and were then issued certificates which falsely represented that the prescribed competencies had been demonstrated.
An ICAC undercover operative was given two false First Aid, three false Responsible Service of Alcohol and three false Responsible Conduct of Gaming certificates in the names of other people in exchange for $800.
The Commission made 16 corruption prevention recommendations to address what it termed “the fundamental regulatory problems besetting the industry”.
The Commission considered how the evidence of “corrupt conduct and poor quality recognition of prior learning assessments uncovered during this investigation raised real doubts about the legitimacy of all
current security licences in NSW and the integrity and competence of all security training providers”.
Functions the ICAC considered the NSW Police Commissioner should assume ultimate responsibility for included corruption prevention, corruption risk management, and fraud and corruption investigation and detection.