National Competition Policy Review ofthe Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 Inl rodll(:ti"n RC"'iew Pan.lnu~h'r 2.] Title of thl' I.('gislatioll 2.2 H.l'aliOn\ ror 1hI' R('\ il'\\ 2.2 Puhlit· Bt'lldit T(' 'INhndoln~~ 23 ,CP Rc\·it.."" ferllls of l~cren'IICl' 2.4 (;oH'rnml'IH Priority ()utcom(· 2.5 ('nntJuct of the Rl.'\·ic\\ .~ Lct!islati\ e Framl',\ol'k 3.1 SC('urit~ Pru\ h)(.'rs Act t 99.~ 3.2 Secllrity Provider.\ Regulation /995 ..J I'hl- S('curit~ indust .., .t.t ()uccnshlnd 4.2 \utional .\Iarkt't 6 ()th('r I.('gislation b.t Ulltlla/ Recl1;:nitio1J (QId) Act 1992 and Trans- Ttl.\lIIan MUluul Rec'ogllitioll (QId) .kl /999 6.2 \\"('HpOnS :\ct 1990 6.3 Other Venue-Related S('t'lIrit~· J.egi~latioll 6.4 ()th('r .Ju..htJictions 7 Restrktions on Competi.ion 7.1 I.iC(·llsing 7.2 Business (·ontJuct 7.3 General Rutionall' for Rt.'~uJation of Sccurit)- PrU\iders X Lic('l1'1in~ 8.t Applicants must h(' 1H.n>ars or age x.2 :\ppI'Oprialc Persun lU.t Dishone'lty. intl'grity or hara~sing tactics tU.2 ;\s~ociati()n "ith a niminal tlud indicnt('s i1n'olwment in criminal m·ti\'itil''' 8.2•.1 l)('lltOl' uude.- bankrnptc~: laws S.2A lias been cOln'icted of an off('net' It2.5 Di"lJualiryin~ oft'('l1ces 83 llisdosure of Ofrences and Criminal Rehahilitation It4 Testilnonials 8.5 Trainin~ Requiremt!nts It6 Fl'e'l N.h.. Application and .\nllual Fcc!ot ]'hrcc ):ear n.'llc\l"uls 8.6.2 8.7 Offenct's for :'\on-("ornl)lillnCC 8.8 <."onditions of I Jcencc H.9 COlldusion~ und R('cornm('ntJatiol1s - l.ic('nsinl! applicabll' to all applicants 9 l:Jrh'ah' In\t'stig~uor!'o 9.1 Bl1ckground 9.2 l.iccnsing Requirl'ml·nts ·'.2.1 Benefits and Costs 9.3 Business COllducl l).4 I 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 5 5 6 6 6 10 10 10 11 12 13 13 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 20 21 22 24 26 27 27 27 29 30 31 32 33 33 34 34 36 37 39 39 40 Trainill~ 9.5 l.iC('IlCe Exenlption~ l)5,t Emplo~'ee (',\cnlp.inns 9.5.2 Legal practitioners and Accountants Public Benefit Test Report Page 1 :-::- National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 9.5.J 9.5.4 ().6 IJI"U nlUrc agenh (or l'mplo~ce~ I~rhdte 10 I 0.1 jO.2 ·\dju No. of licensees 246 45 63 5 5 Nil 217 2 Applicants who are granted a conditional licence also have the option of appealing against the Chief Executive's decision to grant the licence subject to the condition/s as per discussion above at the beginning of this section. A Miscellaneous Condition on a security finn's licence would be used in the case of an applicant who applies under mutual recognition where the licence was conditions under a category in the first jurisdiction that is not recognised in Queensland 46 Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 31 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regula/ioll 1995 Conclusion Nothing adverse has arisen in relation to conditional licences and the Chief Executive's discretion to issue licences subject to conditions should be retained. 8.9 Conclusions and Recommendations Licensing applicable to all applicants In summary it is concluded that: • • • • • • the currcnt age restriction is justified in the public interest and should be retained. the criteria for detennining whether applicants are 'appropriate persons' to holder a licence are appropriate and should be retained. the criminal history disclosure requirements under the Act should remain unchanged; the requirement that testimonials be provided should be rctained; the fees charged in Queensland are not considered excessive and do not represent a restriction on entry into the industry or impact significantly on competition. the current offences and penalties for operating or employing a person to operate whilst unlicensed are an adequate deterrent to persons carrying out the functions of a security provider without a licence. the Chief Executive's discretion to issue licences subject to conditions should be retained. • It is recommended that the Office of Fair Trading: • assess the current disqualifying offences with a view to detennining whether the current offences remain relevant and whether any other offences should be recognised as a disqualifying offence; and • investigate the legislative and stakeholder impacts of requiring applicants to disclose criminal history of offences committed within the last five years irrespective of whether a conviction was recorded. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 32 National Competition Policy Review of tile Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 9 9.1 Private Investigators (Background A report titled, Private Investigators in Australia: Work, Law, Ethics and Regulation, was prepared for the Criminology Research Council (the PI Report) in July 2001. The PI Report resulted from an analysis of the nature of the private investigation industry and included a consideration of ethical and regulatory issues based on a study of forty private investigators and commercial agents. The PI Report found the private investigator industry comprises four broad areas of work, namely anti-fraud, legal, commercial and domestic investigation. It was found that anti-fraud work was conducted mainly for large insurance firms, some self-insured private firms and government insurance agencies. This type of work includes both factual (interviews and further enquiries) and surveillance and tTacking work. The cases usually involve physical disability claims where private investigators attempt to discover evidence contrary to that given by the claimants. Insurance work can also include investigation into welfare, unemployment benefit, arson, accidents and stolen vehicles fraud. Legal work is the mainstay of many investigators, including background or factual work for lawyers in civil and some criminal cases. This largely involves locating and interviewing possible witnesses or claimants. Private investigators may also conduct surveillance to gather evidence, locate and analyse forensic evidence, investigate the financial capacity of persons to pay court-ordered compensation and conduct process service duties. The PI Report indicates that the commercial inquiry aspect of private investigation is a growing area where businesses are turning to private investigators to undertake electronic counter-measures (debugging), liability investigations, workplace investigations into theft or harassment and preemployment checks. This category also includes trademark and copyright investigations, risk and security assessments, bodyguard work for executives, theft recoveries and investigation of computer based attacks on business. Repossession and debt collection to enforce legal contracts and obligations arc also captured within this category. The PI Report indicates that domestic investigations include checking for fidelity, teenage drug use, abducted child recoveries, missing persons and private legal matters. The PI Report found that most of the interviewees agreed that compliance with regulatory regimes has increased substantially in the last decade. This has been especially since the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption Inquiry into the unauthorised release of government information, which revealed a widespread corrupt trade in confidential government information by State and Commonwealth officers and members of the private sector. The Queensland Criminal Justice Commission published a report in relation to protecting confidential Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 33 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act J993 and the Security Providers Regula/ioll J995 information in November 2000. This report commented on the weak regulatory regime currcntly in place for private investigators and of the urgent need to review practices in Queensland. It concluded that 'for both the commercial agent and private investigator industries, the current regime of government regulation was not sufficient to ensure even the minimum level of professionalism and integrity' . The 1983 Australian Law Reform Commission Rcport titled Privacy found that private investigators can be highly vulnerable to misconduct and can be tempted to engage in breaches of privacy. It concluded that they might commit trespass, conspire with others on what may amount to criminal or civil conspiracy, obtain and disclose information in circumstances which breach confidence in the legal sense and may breach legislation aimed at making certain activities criminal, such as that relating to official secrets, interception of telecommunications and the use of listening devices. 9.2 Licensing Requirements The Act provides that all private investigators must be licensed. A 'private investigator' is defined for the purpose of the Act, as a person who for reward obtains and gives information about another person. The Act contains a number of exemptions, which are discussed in section 8.1.3. The majority of industry members who made submissions thought the definition of private investigators was appropriate. The Queensland Police Service commented that the current definition is adequate and broad enough to encompass a wide array of persons and situations. Some stakeholders felt that all or some of the exemptions were appropriate, but some felt the exemptions from holding a licence were not appropriate. Exemptions from holding a private investigator licence are discussed further in sections 9.5. Analysis of training requirements for private investigators is discussed further in section 9.4. Since the Act commenced, the Office of Fair Trading has received approximately 37 complaints, seven of which were in relation to alleged unlicensed private investigators, with two resulting in successful prosecutions for operating without the appropriate licence. These two prosecutions involve a firm who employed a person without a relevant licence to carry out the functions of a private investigator. Both the firm and the individual were successfully prosecuted. In comparison to complaints about other security providers, the Office of Fair Trading has received minimal complaints in relation to allegedly unlicensed private investigators. 9.2.1 Benefits and Costs Community The licensing of private investigators under the Act helps to ensures that the privacy of individuals is protected from persons who collect and use confidential information or make inquiries that may lead to a breach of privacy laws. The Act ensures that private investigators have a level of competency and knowledge that protects the community from disrepute and invasions of privacy, thereby contributing Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 34 National Competition Policy Review of the SeCllrity Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Reglliation 1995 toward the Government priority of a safer community. Licensing also helps to ensure that persons operating within the industry meet certain community expectations that private investigators are trained adequately. The community benefits from the reassurance that private investigators are appropriate and responsible persons. A greater level of protection is afforded to consumers through compliance and enforcement measures, which identify and address private investigators who do not comply with the Act. The community benefits from the licensing of appropriate persons as private investigators in a number of other ways. It assists in the location of debtors and in obtaining the subsequent payment of debts and prevents commercial debts being passed on to the public47 • Private investigators have taken a role in preventing loss and enhancing ethics within the broader community in cases where they have obtained evidence which has resulted in suspect insurance claims being dropped, criminal convictions being obtained or the termination of employment of offenders. Inquiries made by private investigators contribute toward peace of mind of clients in sensitive domestic situations. Where private investigators gather information for legal cases, the community benefits from well trained private investigators that have an understanding of evidentiary and other court related matters. The community as a whole benefits by ensuring that private investigators are appropriate people who hold relevant experience and knowledge of the industry, who are ethical and do not contribute toward criminal behaviour in the community. The costs to the community of regulating private investigators arc the financial costs of licensing ($91.50 for an individual applicant, $459 for a firm) and of training (between $300 and $5,500 per applicant) are inevitably incorporated in the costs passed on to the end user, however, these costs would be minimal when spread out over all clients, annually. Industry The licensing of private investigators creates a benefit to the private investigations industry in ensuring a level playing field for all Queensland industry members. Appropriate training benefits industry by ensuring that the services provided are of a high standard thereby increasing efficiency of those who operate in the industry. The requirement that licensees are appropriate and are adequately trained enhances the reputation of private investigators generally. Licensing and appropriate lraining to a recognised standard provides consistency between jurisdictions to enable Mutual Recognition Laws to be applied so that a licensee who wishes to transfer interstate can easily be recognised for their skills and training in another state, producing a benefit to industry. The licensing requirements create a barrier to enlry for industry members. These barriers include the cosl of licensing fees of $91.50 per annum for an individual and $459 per annum for a finn, which are borne directly by the applicant. The costs oftraining courses (between $300 and $5,500) are borne by ~7 T Prenzler, Private Illvestigators July 200 I, p34 ill Australia: Work, Law. Ethics and Regulatioll, Criminology Research Council, 13 Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 35 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act J993 and the Security Providers Regulation J995 the applicant. Licensing makes it more difficult for inappropriate persons and persons who do not possess the requisite knowledge and skills required to carry out the function of private investigator from entering the industry. Government The Government aims to provide a safer community for Queenslanders, and it is contributing toward this priority by producing a skilled security industry that protects rather than contributes toward injuries of the public. Through licensing, Government is able to provide a greater level of protection to consumers by identifying and dealing with private investigators that do not comply with the Act. Private investigators are often requested to do illegal or ethically questionable services such as placing listening devices in homes or offices, service of threats, breaking and entering to search for evidence, location of people that the client wishes to harass or assault, or finding spouses who have gone into hiding48 • Untrained private investigators without sufficient knowledge or ethics may assist in the commission of criminal offences through ignorance of the law and by not giving adequate explanations to clients of penalties that apply for breaches. Government incurs a financial and administrative burden of licensing and ensuring compliance. These costs are offset to some extent by fees obtained from new entrants and on-going licensees. Compliance costs are generally high, with several authorised officers required at any given time to conduct spot checks or react to complaints received in relation to private investigators. The costs of taking a matter to court is also borne by the regulating agency, which may include crown law costs, barrister's fees, court filing costs and other incidentals. Conclusion Overall the benefits of licensing private investigators to the community as a whole outweigh the costs to stakeholders and it is recommended that the entry restriction for private investigators be retained. 9.3 Business Conduct Private Investigators are not required to adhere to any legislative business conduct requirements. They are free to negotiate contractual arrangements with their clients and, as such, are subject to common law obligations to the client. Often these contracts create a relationship of agency between the contractor and the private investigator. A contract of agency is one where a person has authority or capacity to act on another person's behalf in dealings with a third person. Private investigators may also enter into a contract of service with clients. The common law imposes a nwnber of duties on agents including a duty to follow instructions, to act in person, to act in the interest of the principal, to take care of the principal's property, to keep 48 Ibid, p37 Public Benefit Test Report- Appendix A Page 36 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the SeclII7ty Providers Regulatioll 1995 separate accounts, and to keep proper accounts available for inspection. Breach of any of these duties may result in a client being awarded damages for loss caused as a result of the breach. Privacy may be viewed as essential to human dignity and is a key value underpinning freedom of association and freedom of speech. Amendments to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) , which commenced on 1 July 200 I, widen the scope of the Privacy Act to create National Privacy Principles (NPPs) which apply to the activities and practices of organisations within the private sector. These •organisations' include an individual, bodies corporate, a partnership, or any other unincorporated association, or a trust, but not a small business operator, in some situations. The NPPs set out standards for the collection of data (NPP I), use and disclosure of information (NPP2), data quality (NPP3), data security (NPP4) and openness (NPP5) of personal information by all private sector organisations (Schedule 3 - National Privacy Principles). All private investigators within the private sector (other than small business operators in certain circumstances) must now comply with the NPPs contained in the Privacy Act or alternatively, organisations may operate under a Code of Conduct, pre-approved by Commonwealth Privacy Commissioner. 9.4 Training Applicants for a private investigator's licence are required to complete an approved training course. Currently, training must be provided in accordance with the selected training criteria listed below as determined by the Chief Executive of the Office of Fair Trading. Applicants must have gained a qualification in a course approved by the Chief Executive and which has been accredited under the National Training Framework and delivered and assessed by a registered training organisation ('RTO') (registered by the Training Recognition Council in Queensland). The Chief Executive will only approve the course if it covers the following selected training criteria: lJ lJ lJ lJ lJ lJ lJ lJ lJ lJ o lJ lJ Introduction to the institutions, structures, processors and evaluation of Australia's private security industry through to regulation; Basic introduction to concepts and methods of investigation; Basic introduction to general investigative methodology and structure; General techniques and methods for taking clients instructions prior to and during an investigation; Introduction to Law - structures and processes associated with the law; Basic introduction to the structure and jurisdiction of Australia's court system; Introduction to the law as it applies to general and routine types of investigation; Responsibilities associated with gathering and imparting advice and information to clients and other persons involved in the investigative process; Basic introduction to rules, policies and procedures relating to evidence; Basic concepts relating to human behaviour in a variety of situations; Interview Techniques; Basic and typical sources of information utilised within routine enquiries; Basic techniques involved with locating and/or pursuing missing persons; and Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 37 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 o General requirements and processes involved in the compilation of reports and statements. There are fifteen RTOs who are approved by the Training Recognition Council appointed by the Minister for Employment & Training to provide training courses. All training courses are available in Queensland, with one RTO based in Victoria. The Private Investigations Course is available in Brisbane, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Cairns and far North Queensland. The courses outside of Brisbane and the Gold Coast initially only offered their service once as all RTOs providing the Private Investigators course find it necessary to provide other services, due to the low level of demand for this course. The cost of courses range from $300 to $5,500 (with an average cost of $483.30). The longest course is 300 hours and the shortest is 35 hours (with an average of 92.16 hours). The minimum number of hours, set by the accredited course is 35 hours. Consultation with private investigator trainers indicated private investigators courses are offered approximately 20 - 25 times per annum. The Office of Fair Trading is currently considering replacing the minimum training standards listed above with units of competency taken from the National Training Package for Asset Security Security and Investigative Services (PRS98) as follows: Units of Competency Select method of gathering information Gather information by surveillance Gather information by factual investigation Conduct interview and take statements Compile written report Prepare evidence for use in court Give evidence in court Maintain customer relations Maintaining occupational health and safety PRSIR PRSIR PRSIR PRSIR PRSIR PRSIR PRSIR PRSIR PRSIR In the PI Report, most interviewees (97.5%) argued that the current mandated pre-training was inadequate in developing both practical and ethical competencies49 . Stakeholder submissions suggest that private investigator courses are being conducted over one week, and that in order to reach an appropriate level of competency, a person requires much more extensive training and experience. The Department of Employment and Training has advised that from July 2002 al1 RTOs will be audited for compliance against the Australian Quality Training Framework standards for registered training organisations. These standards have strengthened, supplemented and clarified the current standards for training and the application of sanctions. These new standards will also support the improvement of RTO practice and the credibility of their services. The Department of Industrial Relations which incorporates WorkCover Queensland submits that the training for private investigators appears to be inadequate in developing both practical and ethical competencies and suggests that an investigator requires much more training and experience. The Department supports the recommendation in relation to training of private investigators. 49 Ibid, p41 Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 38 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 Conclusion The Office of Fair Trading give further consideration to requiring private investigators to complete competency based training in the National Training Package for Asset Security - Security and Investigative Services (PRS98) as the minimum training standard. 9.5 9.5.1 Licence Exemptions Enlployee exemptions For the purposes of the Act, persons who are employees of persons obtaining infonnation for their own purposes about other people are not considered to be private investigators so • For example, a retail department store employee who obtains infonnation about the credit standing of a person who has applied for a store credit card, or a human resource department who obtains information from referees about the employment history of applicants for positions are not private investigators. However, where they are rewarded solely for the purpose of obtaining that infonnation they will be, for the purposes of the Act, considered private investigators. Persons who are credit reporting agents within the meaning of the Invasion of Privacy Act and persons who give infonnation about another person from existing records in the person's possession, or in the possession of the person's employer, are not required to hold a private investigator's licence. There is no evidence to indicate that employees who assess credit history or perform human resource functions hinder the objectives of the Act by incompetent behaviour that may be unacceptable to the community, to an extent that warrants licensing of employees. The behaviour of persons who are employed by large firms are often controlled by an employee code of conduct or a particular standard for employees prescribed by the firm, where high standards are considered to be competitively advantageous. This is consistent with the policy rationale for exempting the activities of in-house security officers have not caused concern to the community as they have a reputation to up-holdS I . There have been no complaints received by the Office of Fair Trading in relation to issues arising from employees of persons obtaining information while performing credit and employment references, nor from in-house security officers causing any detriment in anyway to the community. As such, this exemption does not appear to create any unnecessary cost to the community and there appears to be little benefit in requiring this industry group to be subject to restrictive licensing and conduct regulation. Exempting such employees is consistent with the general rationale for regulating security providers discussed in section 7.3. ~u Section 6(2) of the Act ~l Hansard, 2 December 1993, p6428 Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 39 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 Conclusion The exemptions for employees are justified, given that they are often controlled by codes of practice of large firms. There have been no complaints to indicate these persons compromise the objectives of the Act by not obtaining a security providers licence, and as such the exemption should remain unchanged. 9.5.2 Legal practitioners and Accountants An exemption exists for lawyers and accountants and their employees52 • For the purposes of the Act, an accountant is a person who is a registered auditor under the Corporations Act, a member of the CPA Australia (Certified Practicing Accountants), the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, or a member of the National Institute of Accountants as prescribed53 . For the purposes of the Act, a legal practitioner is defined as a barrister or solicitor in the performance of the practice of a barrister or solicitor54 • The rationale, as stated by the Honourable PR Delamothe, the then Minister for Justice, for establishing these exemptions was that there was some overlap between the proposed legislation and the proper activities of reputable professional and business persons such as solicitors, accountants and insurance companies 55 . These groups are subject to professional ethical duties and obligations. In contrast, at the time of introduction the Invasion of Privacy Act it was considered that the conduct of private investigators was not subject to any similar duties or obligations 56 . Stakeholder response to this exemption varied. Most believe that it is appropriate that legal practitioners and accountants should be exempt from section 657 as they have appropriate professional bodies, which regulate their behaviour and professional conduct. The Queensland Police Service agreed with this approach. However, some stakeholders suggest that assistants or employees of professionals should be required to comply with the Act. Other stakeholders suggest that lawyers have a competitive advantage, as they are not subject to licensing requirements under the Act including the cost of training of between $300 and $5,500 and licensing fees of $91.50 for individuals and $459 for firms. It should be noted, however, that lawyers are subject to an extensive regulatory regime requiring a form of occupational licensing as well as control over business conduct such as requirements for indemnity insurance and fidelity cover. The rationale behind requiring assistants or employees to comply is that many junior clerks carry out investigative functions. It is considered that these persons have not been assessed as meeting the 'appropriate person test' nor have they completed relevant training. However, there would appear to be little benefit in requiring these persons to be licensed. There have been no known complaints received by the Office of Fair Trading in relation to this group of persons. Further these persons are Sections 6(2) and {3} - Who is a private investigator Section 3 - Definitions 54 As at 51 5S Hansard, 13 Octo ber 1971, P1063 S6 Hansard, 20 Octo ber 1971, P 1298 57 As at 52 S2 SJ Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 40 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security PI'Ol'iders Regulation 1995 employed by or are under the control of a trained professional who should instruct the employee appropriately. Ultimately the employer is responsible for the acts of the employee. Exempting assistants and employees of legal practitioners and accountants is consistent with the general rationale for regulating security providers (see section 7.3). Stakeholders commented that some lawyers who leave their profession and commence work as a private investigator do not obtain the appropriate licence. The Act defines both professions and specifies that a person is not a private investigator if that person is 'carrying out the functions of the person's occupation or employment' as a legal practitioner58 . The Queensland Act does not exempt lawyers unless that person is in fact employed in the occupation of legal practitioner. A person who ceases to work as a lawyer and commences occupation as a private investigator will need to hold a licence under the Act. The Queensland exemption is consistent with other legislation, for example South Australia exempts professionals 'whilst practicing in their profession', recognising that some lawyers and accountants may perform private investigations outside of their employment within the legal or accounting industries or subject to any professional and ethical standards that would apply if they were so employed. Conclusion The exemption for legal practitioners, accountants and their employees is justified, given that they are subject to professional ethical duties and obligations and employees work under the direct control of the professional. There have been no complaints received in the Office of Fair Trading in relation lo this group and this approach is consistent with the approach in other jurisdictions. It is therefore recommended that the exemption in section 6(3)(a) of the Act remain unchanged. 9.5.3 1nsuranc(~ agents (or employee) An insurance agent typically liaises between insurance companies and clients and organises the completion of documentation to provide insurance cover for new and existing clients 59 . The lasks that may be perfonned by insurance agents include interviewing customers to explain insurance policies, making recommendations on the amount and type of cover, compiling lists of prospective clients, making contact with prospective clients to seek interviews and gauge interest, researching new . . msurance pro ducts an d co 11' premIUms60 . cetmg There is some level of self-regulation within the industry at the present time with some larger insurance companies utilising codes of conduct or procedures to ensure employees act and operale appropriately. However, not all finns utilise such codes. Section 6 (3) - Who is a private investigator Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Standard Classification of Occupations, Second Edition, Structure and Definitions - Insurance Agent 60 Ibid SK 59 Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 41 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 Stakeholder submissions have suggested that the exemptions for insurance agents and their employees create a loophole that could be susceptible to misuse. The rationale behind this suggestion is that while insurance investigations are usually subcontracted to licensed investigators, there are some agents who designate personnel to carry out inquiries who may not be trained for the purpose. Such individuals are not restrained by licence provisions as they do not risk disciplinary action, in the form of licence revocation, for inappropriate action or behaviour. Unlicensed insurance agents could be biased and company-orientated in assessments. Submissions have been received suggesting that insurance agents or assessors carry out the same functions as private investigators, giving insurance agents or assessors a competitive advantage. Suggestions have been made that all persons carrying out investigations of any nature that involve details of another person must be accountable for this information and should either be required to comply with the Act or be subject to a code of practice. The Queensland Police Service submits that insurance agents and the like are often employed by organisations to investigate insurance claims. They are not licensed or subject to any training or accountability regimes while performing investigative functions. The Queensland Police Service considers that it is appropriate for these persons to be included as part of the definition of 'private investigator', and therefore be subject to suitability checks, adequate training and accountability mechanisms similar to other private investigators. The exemption for insurance agents and their employees creates an uneven playing field for the industry. On this basis, it could be argued that persons who carry out investigative functions, in their capacity as an insurance agent or employee of an insurance agent, should be suitable persons who are aware of confidentiality issues surrounding the gathering of information in relation to other persons, investigative methods, techniques for client conduct, the applicable laws, policies and procedure relating to evidence and basic concepts relating to human behaviour. Therefore, these persons should be accountable for their actions, similar to licensed private investigators. However, removing the exemption for insurance agents or their employees will further restrict the market, by introducing a barrier to entry that does not currently exist in relation to this group. Further analysis and consultation with the insurance industry as part of a further investigation is required before it can be determined whether the objectives of the Act are compromised because of this exemption. Given that analysis of a more restrictive approach to the current regulation is outside the scope of NCP Guidelines, it is recommended that this issue be considered as part of a further investigation. Conclusion It is recommended that the current exemption for insurance agents and their employees be retained at this stage, but that the Office of Fair Trading conduct inquiries into the costs and benefits of removing this exemption. 9.5.4 Loss Adjusters (or employee) Public Benefit Test Report- Appendix A Page 42 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 Loss adjusters typically inspect and assess the damage or loss to insured property or business, estimate insurance costs and act to minimise the cost of claims for an insurance companl 1• The tasks of loss adjusters may include: • • • • • • • inspecting damaged property to estimate the cost of repairs; estimating business loss resulting from fire, theft or other business disruptions; reporting the extent of damage and costs to insurers; approving repairers' quotes, authorising repair work and supervising progress of repairs; interpreting insurance policies and advising insurance on whether claims are valid; identifying and selecting experts or consultants to advise on specialised areas; and negotiation of settlements between the insurer and the insured62 • Some stakeholders submitted that the loss adjuster exemption is not appropriate as loss adjusters and their employees also obtain infonnation about other people for reward and should be appropriate persons with adequate training. It is often industry practice that after a loss adjuster has assessed a file and believes that there are suspicious circumstances, that the file is passed on to a private investigator. The private investigator will then often make the same inquiries as those previously conducted by the loss adjuster. If this situation does occur in relation to some loss adjusters, this duplication of private investigators and loss adjusters making the same inquiries may have potential to cause animosity if a client is approached or investigated twice, causing complaints to be made against the private investigator. ]n relation to this issue, the Australasian Institute of Chartered Loss Adjusters ('the Institute') submit that when a loss adjuster is unable to readily determine the circumstances relating to a loss, or if fraud is suspected, the loss adjuster, or insurer, will appoint a private investigator whose sold responsibility is to undertake a comprehensive factual investigation into the circumstances of the loss. The Institute has approximately 180 members in Queensland with 1,000 members throughout Australia. The Institute has opposed the licensing of loss adjusters as its members are bound by a Charter of Objects and Professional Conduct. The industry is self regulated through the Charter and is subject to professional and ethical duties and obligations. They submit that the rationale for the loss adjuster exemption has not changed over time. The objects of the Institute are to advance the profession for the benefit if its practitioners and the public in general through continual education and encouragement of skilled, ethical and sound practice in the profession 6J • Before successfully becoming an Ordinary Member of the Institute, the applicant must: Q Q Q be 18 years of age; primarily engaged in the vocation of loss adjusting; successfully have competed the institute's entrance examination criteria, being Module INS060- Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Standard Classification of Occupations, Second Edition, Structure and Definitions, Insurance Loss Adjuster 62 Ibid 63 Constitution of Australasian Institute of Chartered Loss Adjusters Limited p2 61 Public Benefit Test Report- Appendix A Page 43 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act J993 and the Security Pl'Oviders Regulation 1995 [J Loss Adjusting Principles and Practice from the ANSIIF Diploma of Financial Services (Loss Adjusting); and agree to comply with requirements of continuing professional development as prescribed by the Institute's Board of Directors. Compliance with the Charter is mandatory and any member who is guilty of infringing any clause of the Charter may be liable to disciplinary sanction by the institute by way of either caution and/or reprimand, suspension from membership for any period not exceeding two years, or expulsion. The charter specifies that disciplinary action will be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Charter adequately ensures that members are suitably qualified to act as loss adjusters and ensures that members are removed from office for non-compliance with the Charter but are afforded natural justice in the removal process. As such it appears that the exemption for loss adjusters is justified. However, not all loss adjusters form part of the Institute, requiring mandatory compliance with the Charter and expulsion from the Institute does not mean the person will not continue work as a loss adjuster regardless. It is difficult to ascertain the exact number ofloss adjusters operating in Queensland, or nationally. A search ofwww.yellowpages.com.auindicates there are approximately 140 loss adjusters businesses in Quecnsland and more than 1,000 loss adjuster businesses nationally. However, it must be noted that this figure indicates the number of businesses registered in the yellow pages only and does not give any indication of the number of individual loss adjusters operating in Queensland or nationally. There appears to be three main groups, which can be categorised as, members of the Institute, nonmembers of the Institute and in-house loss adjusters who work directly for and are employed by insurance companies. Traditionally in-house loss adjusters were not able to join the Institute, but the Charter has now been broadened to include this group. It is predicted that this group of the industry will gradually join the Institute. It seems there may be some argument for requiring loss adjusters or employees who arc not either members of the Institute nor in-house loss adjusters working for insurance companies, to comply with the training and licensing requirements that private investigators are subject to. This review has not undertaken targeted wide consultation with loss adjusters and cannot gain a clear indication of the sizc of the industry in comparison with how many industry members are members of the Institute. There have been no complaints received in the Office afFair Trading and very little evidence of detriment to consumers as a result of dealings with loss adjusters. No other jurisdiction requires loss adjusters to hold an occupational licence. Conclusion The exemption for Loss Adjusters and their employees should remain. However, the Office of Fair Trading, in consultation with the loss adjuster industry should examine the impacts on the community and stakeholders of including a definition of a loss adjuster in the Act that includes members of the Institute only. An assessment of the Institute requirements will need to be conducted to ensure that its Public Benefit Test Report- Appendix A Page 44 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Provide/'s Act /993 and the Sec/wity Providers Reglliation /995 requirements are at least equivalent to the Act. Inclusion of such a definition would require loss adjusters who were not members of the Institute to comply with the Act. !).6 Conclusions and Recommendations - Private onvestigators In summary it is concluded that: • • • the benefits, to the community as a whole, of licensing private investigators outweigh the costs to stakeholders and should be retained. the exemptions for employees, legal practitioner, accountants (and their employees) should be retained. the exemptions for insurance agents, loss adjusters and their respective employees be retained at this stage. It is recommended that the Office of Fair Trading: • • • give further consideration to requiring private investigators to complete competency based training in the National Training Package for Asset Security - Security and Investigative Services (PRS98) as the minimum training standard; conduct inquiries into the costs and benefits of removing the exemption for insurance agents; and in consultation with the loss adjuster industry examine the impacts on the community and stakeholders of including a definition of a loss adjuster in the Act that includes members of the Institute only where loss adjusters who were not members of the Institute would be required to comply with the Act. The assessment should canvass the Institute's requirements for membership to ensure that its requirements are at least equivalent to the Act. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 45 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 10 10. t Crowd Controllers Licensing The Act provides that all crowd controllers must be licensed. For the purposes of the Act, a 'crowd controller' is defined as a person who, for reward, acts either as a bodyguard or is at a public place principally for the purpose of maintaining order in or about the public place. 64 A person must meet the licensing criteria discussed in Section 8, including the appropriate person test and must complete relevant training, analysis of which is discussed further in Section 10.2. The crowd controller provisions of the Act were enacted as a result of several incidents around Queensland, especially on the Gold Coast, where increasingly more staff were needed to control crowds at nightclubs and during large events. During debate of the Act, members identified that there had been increased reports in the media regarding the upward trend incidents of crowd controllers using excessive violence. Debate focussed particularly on one article which estimated that more than 500 people a year were treated at the Gold Coast Hospital for bouncer-related injuries 65 . In 1998, 135 crowd controllers underwent licence checks at 30 Gold Coast venues. As a result five were found to be unlicensed. Two of the five were holding false licences. On the Sunshine Coast 30 crowd controllers underwent licence checks at 12 venues where 100% compliance was observed66 • It is acknowledged that the Gold Coast and Brisbane are the main metropolitan areas of Queensland holding major events such as Schoolies Week, Indy Race and music festivals. These large events require large numbers of crowd controllers to adequately fulfil their crowd controlling functions. However, large crowds at major events also affect other regional areas such as Toowoomba, the Sunshine Coast and Cairns at peak times such as Schoolies Week67 . A breakdown of major spot check programs undertaken by the Office of Fair Trading in conjunction with Liquor Licensing Officers and/or Police officers, since 1996 appears below. It should be noted that while prosecution action may have been instituted as a result of spot checks undertaken, the final result of prosecution is not recorded in this table. Date October 1996 February 1997 Region Brisbane suburbs Surfers Paradise Broadbeach Licence checked 13 licences 13 registers Unknown licences 7 registers Compliance Rate 100% licences 4 deficient registers 7 unlicensed Comments Spot checks on firms 4 warnings issued 7 prosecutions 64 6S 66 67 Section 5 of the Act - 'Who is a crowd controller' As at 51, Mr Nuttall, Member for Sandgale, p6412 As at 51, p5250 Hansard, Questions Wilhout Notice, 24 November 1999, Ms Spence, Minister for Fair Trading, p5249 Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 46 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act J993 and the Security Providers Regulation J995 May 1998 Brisbane Fortitude Valley Gold Coast Gold Coast 165 licences 49 registers 58 liccnces I register 152 licences 30 registers 7 licences 4 re/!;isters 28 licences 5 registers 166 licences 30 licences 12 re.l!isters 33 licences 7 registers 83 licences 3 I registers 13 licences 6 rcgisters II licences 2 rel!isters 20 licences 5 registers 21 spot checks 7 spot checks 161 spo t checks 47 licences 137 licences 23 registers 91% licensing 93% register 100% licensing 100% register 91 % licensing 83% registers 100% licensing 4 ID breaches 100% licensing I Register breach 100% licensing 7 ID breaches 100% licensing I x re.l!ister breach 100% licensing I x register breach I x unlicensed 8 x Register breach I x expired licence 4 x Register breach 5 x unlicensed 2 x Register breach I x unlicensed 100% register compliance Unavailablc Unavailable Unavailable I x Register breach licensing 100% compliance 1 x Register breach 100% compliance 2 x unlicensed 2 x Register breach 93.3% licence 94.4% register Unavailable 100% compliance Unavailable Unavailable Unavai [able Unavai lable Unavailable Unavailable October 1998 Novembcr 1998 Many CCs verbally warned entering for not full residential address Indy 2000 Schoolies Week II prosecutions 5 warnings 4 warnings December 1998 August 1999 October 1999 October 1999 November 1999 December 1999 Ipswich Ipswich Surfers Paradise Sunshine Coast Toowoomba Brisbane Fortitude Valley Paddington Fortitude Valley Toowoombal DalbY Mackay I warning Indy 300 7 warninl!s I warning Schoolies Week I warning I prosecution 8 warnings March 2000 June 2000 July 2000 5 warnings No staff used register or wore CC ID I prosecution July 2000 Au~st 2000 September 2000 September 2000 October 2000 Various Various Various Gold Coast Gold Coast Indy Track Surfers Paradise Broadbeach Surfers Paradise Noosa Mooloolaba Toowoomba Various Mackay Various Various Various Various Various Various Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Pre-Indy 300 I warning issued Indy 300 I warning issued November 2000 November 2000 36 licences 12 registers 31 licences 7 registers 61 licences I 8 registers 2 spot checks 21 licences II registers 5 spot checks 3 spot checks 2 spot checks 3 spot checks 3 spot checks I spot check Schoolies Week Sehoolies Week 2 warnings 2 prosecutions Schoolies Week Unavailable Airlie Beach Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable November 2000 December 2000 December 2000 January 2001 February 200 I March 2001 April 2001 Mav 2001 June 2001 Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 47 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulatioll 1995 July 2001 August 2001 September 200 I November 200 I January 2002 Febmary 2002 March 2002 Various Various Various Gold Coast Various Various Various 7 spot checks 20 SPol checks I spot check s 43 licences 10 registers 5 spot checks I spot check 8 SPOI checks Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable 100% compliance Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Schoolies Week Unavailable Unavailable Una vailablc NOTE: The data for regions defined as 'various' does not contain corresponding information on the outcome of each spot cheCk and the level of compliance. These figures have been produced from monthly reporting of the Investigations Branch of the Office afFair Trading, which does not contain specific investigation details. Other figures have been obtained from Reports that are produced after individual spot checks programs, rather that routine pro-active compliance checks. It is clear from the above compliance results that while the industry is complying with the Act for the most part, there remains an element of the industry that continues to attempt to operate without holding an appropriate licence. Generally the level of compliance during events such as schoolies week and Indy 300 are very high. This is due to a greater awareness of the licensing requirements within the industry and through active enforcement, resulting in employers and event organisers being more conscious of employing licensed security providers, which contributes toward greater overall levels of compliance. All stakeholders including the Queensland Police Service commented that the requirement for crowd controllers and bodyguards to be licensed remains an appropriate and relevant requirement. Some stakeholders make suggestions that bodyguards should be subject to requirements separate to crowd controllers and some comments were made in relation to whether or not volunteers should also be captured by the definition of crowd controller. The Queensland Police Service submits that there are issues with the term 'principally', which may compromise the objectives of the Act. This issue falls outside the scope of this review, but has been noted below in Section 16. The Queensland Hotel Association ('the Hotel Association') submit that it is keenly aware of its responsibility to protect the health and well-being of fellow Quecnslanders who patronise their premises and that the hotel industry is a significant participant in the live entertainment industry where bands and entertainers are hired to perform. The Hotel Association submits that the Australian music industry would suffer a significant set back if hotcls were to cease providing live entertainment because of the litigation fears through not being confident that the crowd controllers hired at venues were of acceptable character, behaved appropriately and had obtained an acceptable level of competency training. to. t. J Costs and Benefits Community The community benefits from the licensing of crowd controllers in that licensing ensures persons mect community expectations that crowd controllers are trained adequately. The public is reassured that Public Benefit Test Report- Appendix A Page 48 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Secllrity Providers Regulatioll 1995 crowd controllers are responsible persons, appropriate to hold such a position. The Act provides a greater level of protection to consumers by identifying and sanctioning crowd controllers who do not comply with the Act and promotes confidence throughout the community that crowd controllers can adequately manage large crowds and night club/hotel patrons. The cost to consumers is minimal as a small percentage of licensing ($91.50 for individuals and $459 for firms annually) and training costs (average of $625.58 68 ) will be passed from the licensees to individual consumers. Industry The industry benefits from licensing of crowd controllers as it ensures there is a level playing field for all industry members. Appropriate training ensures that the services provided are of a high standard thereby increasing efficiency and the reputation of the industry is increased through the public perception that suitable persons only are able to operate as crowd controllers. Crowd control is a high-risk occupation. As stated in an Australian Institute of Criminology Report 69 , 'generally any employees who come into contact with clients likely to be violent are at risk'. Adequate training benefits industry members by educating them of the risks associated by providing awareness of crowd management techniques, thereby increasing the safety of not only crowd controllers but the general public with whom which they come into contact. The costs to the industry include the licensing fcc of $91.50 for individuals or $459 for firms, which is borne directly by the licensee, as are the costs of attending appropriate training courses of approximately $1,845 70 (training costs are discussed further in section 10.2). Excluding inappropriate persons who may want to enter into the industry, may potentially reduce the numbers of participants or prospective employees in the industry. The Hotel Association highlighted potential costs if security providers were not used in that the public confidence in the safety of hotels may be diminished. Government The cost to Government of licensing crowd controllers includes the administrative cost of checking licence applications and renewals to determine the applicant's appropriateness. This cost includes wages of staff used to assess applications, the cost of obtaining criminal history reports from the Queensland Police Service and the cost of producing individual licences. The Government also incurs the cost of compliance and monitoring of the industry. These costs are offset by the benefit of revenue obtained from licence fees from applicants. The licensing of crowd controllers under the Act provides a greater level of protection to consumers by identifying and addressing licensees who do not comply with the Act, thereby meeting the Government's priority of creating safer communities. The Government aims to provide a safer community for QueensIanders, and it is contributing toward this priority by producing a skilled Based on average cost of training through RTOs for security officer/crowd controller training, with an average of 109 hours 69 Preventing Client-Initiated Violence: A practical handbook, Claire Mayhew, Australian Institute of Criminology, Research and Public Policy Series No. 30, July 2000, p8 70 Based on PRS20198 Certificate 11 in Security (Guarding) approved hours 246 @ $7.50 per hour (Soulh East Queensland rate) 6H Public Benefit Test Report- Appendix A Page 49 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providet:f Regulation 1995 security industry that protects rather than contributes toward injuries of the public. Conclusion Overall the net benefits to the community and Government of licensing crowd controllers outweigh any cost to stakeholders and should remain unchanged. 10.2 rrraining Requirements Under the Act all individuals who apply for a licence must have successfully completed a training course approved by the Chief Executive 7l • When the Act commenced, training providers were approved by the Chief Executive if they were a 'Registered Training Organisation' (RTO) with the Vocational Education, Training and Employment Commission (VETEC) within the then Department of Employment Training and Industrial Relations and the course was accredited by VETEC as a short course. These courses were modular-based to address knowledge and skill requirements and did not recognise the achievement of units of competency. Over the years since the introduction of the Act, there has been a shift toward competency-based training. A set of competency standards received endorsement by the Australian National Training Authority in March 1996 and in December 1998 the 'National Training Package for Asset Security Security and Investigative Services (PRS98)' was endorsed by the Australian National Training Authority. On I January 200 I, this National Training Package was adopted in Queensland. Persons applying for a security officer or crowd controller's licence, who have not previously undertaken any training prior to I January 200 I must now complete the national training package competency standards. Applicants who were trained prior to 200 I and who had previously obtained a licence may stilI rely on their old training certificate/statement of attainment. The specific units of competency from the National Training Package required to be undertaken in order for applicants to qualify for a security officer or a crowd controller's licence appear below: Units of Competency PRSSGOIA PRSSG03A PRSSG04A PRSSGOSA PRSSG06A PRSSG07A PRSSG08A PRSSGl1A PRSSG12A PRSSG13A PRSSG17A 71 Maintain the securi ty of premises and propertY Maintain safety of premises and personnel Communicate in the workolace Manage conflict Maintain occupational health and safety Manajl;e own performance Operate basic security eQuipment Escort and carry valuab les Provide for safety of persons Control crowds Mainlain an effective relationship with Approved Hours 10 8 10 Crowd Controller X .I' .I' .I' .I' Security Officer .I' .I' .I' .I' .I' ./ 20 6 2 8 10 80 20 3 '" './ " ./ '" ./ ./ X ''" " '" Section II - Entitlement to licences - individuals Public Benefit Test Report- Appendix A Page 50 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers A c/ J993 and the Security Providers Regula/ion 1995 erients,'eu~tomcrs PRSSG18A PRSSG25A PRSSG28A THHBTHS04A Work as part ofa security team Provide emer~eney fir~t aid Interpret and comply with legal and procedural requirements Manage intoxicated persons 3 y' y' y' y' y' y' y' y' 24 70 10 Currently, training providers who wish to offer Certificate II training must first be approved as a RTO through the Department of Employment and Training. There are approximately 70-80 RTOs including some that operate from interstate, who offer courses to Queensland residents. There are three RTOs in North Queensland, three in central Queensland, one in South West Queensland and one in Far North Queensland. Training is critical to ensuring persons who enter and operate in the industry have acceptable levels of competency, knowledge and skills prior to obtaining a licence under the Act. The training requirements reassure the community that the security officers and crowd controllers, who successfully obtain a licence, have the competency and skills necessary to ensure the safety of those who they protect. Many stakeholders agreed that the introduction of Certificate II qualification for security guards has been a positive move to raise the level of qualifications, skills and knowledge of security officers and crowd controllers. However, some stakeholders have advised that the objectives of the Act are being compromised due to short courses being offered which do not adequately cover the core units required. However, under the competency based system the hours for courses are 'nominal hours' only and there are no set hours which providers must spend on courses. Some stakeholders suggest that training should encompass the duties and responsibilities under all relevant legislation, such as Industrial Relations law and the Criminal Code. The Queensland Police Service considered that basic levels of competencies or skills require improvement, which needs to be conducted through accredited training courses. This will improve not only professional performance of security officers and crowd controllers, but also public confidence in their role within the Queensland community. Infonnation obtained through stakeholder responses indicates that some RTOs issue statements of attainment of competency after less than two weeks training where the nominated completion time of Certificate II PRS98 course is six weeks. It has been submitted that such courses teach the basic skills and knowledge required, but do not produce a person with suitable skills to practice investigation or security work, which can be damaging to lives, reputation and credibility. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the rationale behind RTOs conducting courses in a shortcr time frame appears to bc to obtain financial advantage by enabling them to offer more courses annually than competitors. In this regard, it appears that the objectives of the Act are not being met. The National Training Package is presently subject to a national review as part of a process of continuous improvement with completion expected in mid 2002. This review will evaluate whether the package meets current and anticipated vocational assessment and training needs for this industry Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 51 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act J993 and the Security Providers Regula/ion J995 and should result in an improved training package that may address some of the criticism regarding the level of skills being delivered through accredited training. The Department of Employment and Training has advised that from July 2002 all RTOs will be audited for compliance against the Australian Quality Training Framework standards for registered training organisations. These standards have strengthened, supplemented and clarified the current standards for training and the application of sanctions. These new standards will also support the improvement ofRTO practice and the credibility of their services. The Act currently does not provide for any offences for training providers who do not conduct training modules appropriately. However, this is managed through the Training and Employment Act 2000. Conclusion The current training requirements under the Act for crowd controllers and security guards produce a net benefit to all stakeholders and remain appropriate. The training requirements should remain unchanged. However, the Office of Fair Trading should consider the recommendations made during the national review of the National Training Package for Asset Security - Security and Investigative Services (PRS98). 10.3 10.3.1 Other II ssucs Bodyguards The Act requires that all crowd controller licensees complete training in accordance with the National Training Package. This requirement applies regardless of whether the licensee performs crowd controller or bodyguard duties. There may be some cases where a crowd controller does not require the close personal protection component of training, and where bodyguards will not utilise the crowd control training as much as the personal protection component. However, for the purpose of the Act, both bodyguards and crowd controllers must receive adequate training in each type of protection, enhancing their skills to act in both capacities. Given that bodyguards and crowd controllers in Queensland complete the same training, a split between the two categories would further restrict the duties that a licensees is able to fulfiL Currently, a crowd controller can also be a bodyguard and vice versa, which is not the case in other jurisdictions. If Queensland were to split the two categories, this would restrict Queensland licensees from applying under Mutual Recognition laws to other jurisdictions that similarly have a combined definition, which will cause the licensee to obtain a conditional licence only (as is the case in Queensland). In New South Wales, the legislation splits the category of licence of bodyguards and crowd controllers. One of the key differences is that while bodyguard applicants must complete the same Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 52 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 training course as crowd controllers and security officers72, they arc not required to complete all the units of competency that Queensland crowd controllers must complete. The separate categories of licence in New South Wales has caused some problems under Mutual Recognition laws, resulting in persons who are licensed originally in New South Wales only being able to obtain a conditional Queensland crowd controllers licence. This issue is overcome in Queensland by placing a condition on persons who held an original bodyguard licence in New South Wales that they can fulfil the duties of a bodyguard only and not a crowd controller whilst operating in Queensland. To obtain this category of licence in Queensland an applicant must have successfully completed specific components of the national training package for Asset Security - Security and Investigative Services (PRS98). However, if a person holding a Bodyguard licence in NSW applies under Mutual Recognition for an equivalent licence in Queensland, they need to have completed all modules of the national training package before being eligible to obtain the equivalent liccnce. If applicants choose not to complete additional prerequisite training to bring them on par with Queensland crowd controllers, a specific condition will be put on a crowd controller's licence issued to them. Most stakeholders felt that while the definition was appropriate, the 'bodyguard' catcgory should attract a different license with specific criteria. The rationale behind this comment is that bodyguards are used more for personal protection, rather than protection of property or for crowd control and bodyguards specialise in close personal protection rather than crowd control, which requires different skills and training. The training for bodyguards could be increased to include training for personal protection such as the defence arts. However, the Act sets minimum standards only and there is no reason why a bodyguard could not go over and above the minimum standard to ensure he/she is adequately trained in defence. There have been no complaints received by the Office of Fair Trading in relation to bodyguards that indicate any consumer detriment, or that mandatory training requirements for bodyguards are inadequate and indicate a greater level of training is required for bodyguards. Conclusion There is negligible benefit for industry, consumers or Government in splitting the definition of crowd controller into two categories of crowd controller and bodyguard. 10.3.2 V'olunteers Some stakeholders suggested that the current definition of a crowd controller is not appropriate as it includes persons not intended to be controlled or regulated by legislation such as volunteers at school functions such as dances and fetes, or church and sporting groups. However, this is not the case, as one element of the offence73 for operating whilst not licensed includes that the person must be operating •for reward' . Conclusion 72 73 Certificate II in Security Guarding Section 9 of the Act - Requirement to be licensed Public Benelit Test Report - Appendix A Page 53 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Ac:t1993 and the Security Providers Regula/ioll 1995 Volunteers are not captured by the current definition of crowd controller and it is not recommended that volunteers be included as security providers in any capacity. 10.3.3 "Principally' for the pu rpose The definition of a crowd controller is a person who ... is at a public place 'principally' for the . .. purpose 0 f maIntaInIng order... 74 . The word 'principally' means a person having prime responsibility for an obligation75 . This was subject of some debate during the second reading speech. Members of the Legislative Assembly raised the possibility of some parts of the hospitality industry saying that an employee is not a crowd controller if his principal function is a cashier or to remove glasses. This will give people an opportunity to become part-time bouncers and escape licensing under the Ace 6 . The Office of Fair Trading has found, during spot check programs that many employees who have appeared to be acting in a crowd control capacity have advised inspectors that those particular persons fulfil the function of 'glassie' only and as such are exempt from the licensing provisions ofthe Act. Many stakeholders suggest that the word 'principally' within the definition may exclude those who perform security as a secondary function and that these people should be appropriately trained in this secondary function. The Queensland Police Service submits that the component of employees in licensed premises who act as glass collectors, but are utilised at times to perform crowd control functions, circumvents the licensing system. The Queensland Police Service submit that the words 'principally' and 'reward' contributes toward allowing persons who are untrained to perform crowd control functions. Conclusion It is recommended that the current definition of crowd controller be retained. However, the use of the word 'principally' in the definition of a crowd controller has continued to cause potential problems in the industry, which may compromise the objectives of the Act by allowing persons to avoid proper training at the potential detriment of the public. The definition of crowd controller, particularly use of the word 'principally' should be considered further by the Office of Fair Trading. nO.4 Conclusions and Recommendations - Crowd Controllers The licensing of crowd controllers (including bodyguards) remains relevant today, enhances the Section 5 of the Act Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary, Second Edition, 1998, p346 76 As at 5 I, Mr Healy, Member for Toowoomba North, p6414 74 75 Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 54 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Prol'idel's Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulatiol/ 1995 objectives of the Act and produces a net benefit for all stakeholders and should be retained. The current training requirements under the Act for crowd controllers and security guards produce a net benefit to all stakeholders and remain appropriate. The training requirements should remain unchanged. There is negligible benefit for industry, consumers or Government in splitting the definition of crowd controller into two categories of crowd controller and bodyguard. It is recommended that the current definition of crowd controller be retained. Volunteers are not captured by the current definition of crowd controller and it is not recommended that volunteers be included as security providers in any capacity. The use of the word 'principally' in the definition of a crowd controller has continued to cause potential problems in the industry, which may compromise the objectives of the Act by allowing persons to avoid proper training at the potential detriment of the public. The Office of Fair Trading should further consider: • • the recommendations made during the national review of the National Training Package for Asset Security - Security and Investigative Services (PRS98) and the definition of crowd controller, particularly use of the word' principally' should be considered further by the Office of Fair Trading. If it is determined that the word 'principally' be removed from the definition, further consideration should be given to clarifying the words 'maintaining order' with potential exemptions where necessary. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 55 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Secllrity Providers Regulation 1995 I 1 Security Officers 1t.1 licensing The Act provides that all security officers must be licensed. For the purpose of the Act a 'security officer' is defined as a person who, for reward, patrols or guards another person's property.77 However, a person is not a security officer merely because the person, as an employee, patrols or guards his or her employer's own property. 78 As a result, persons who are not defined for the purpose of the Act as security officers include in-house security officers, factory guards or those engaged in cash-in-transit security. When the Act was introduced, it was considered that large employers would not employ security officers who would potentially harm their reputation through improper conduce9 and that exemptions to this group were warranted. Security officers patrol and guard properties such as industrial and other commercial premises, and may provide armed escort services for the transport of cash and other valuables 8o • Tasks may include: o o o o o o o o o o o patrolling areas and checking doors, windows and gates for unauthorised entry; watching for irregularities such as fire hazards, malfunctions of machinery or equipment; issuing security passes to authorised visitors and giving directions, regarding times of entry and departure of authorised persons and times of inspections; monitoring alarms and contacting supervisors, fire brigades or police by radio or phone if security is breached; picking up and ensuring safe delivery of cash, payroll or valuables; operating and servicing coin and currency machines; carrying out cash counting and packaging functions; detecting and investigating shoplifting, fraud and other unlawful acts of employees or patrons of business establishments; preparing reports, obtains statements and gives evidence in court; patrolling areas to maintain order and prevent vandalism; and checking persons and hand luggage to detect concealed weapons and explosives 81 • The licensing of security providers commenced with the introduction of the Invasion of Privacy Act. The purpose of licensing security providers under the Act was due to the steady increase in the business of supplying guards and watchmen for security purposes 82 . The introduction of licensing for this market consisted of a suitability test only with no training requirements. Section 7 of the Act - 'Who is a security officer' Section 7(2) - Who is a security officer 7q As at 51, p6428 KO Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Standard Classification of Occupations, Second Edition, Structure and Definitions, Guards and Security Officers KI Ibid K2 Hansard, 13 October 1971, Hon. PR Delemothe, Member for Bowen and Minister for Justice, pI 063 77 7M Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 56 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Sec/wity Providers Regulation 1995 When the Act was introduced in 1995, it was decided that all security personnel should fall under the one piece of legislation and as such, security officers were also captured by the Act and their entry requirements were extended to include pre-requisite training. Persons who were licensed as security officers under the Invasion of Privacy Act had their licence transferred directly under the new Act. The provision of security services continues to be a popular occupation. Officers arc increasingly taking a more active role in duties that were traditionally performed by members of the Police force, such as neighbourhood policing, alarm call outs and large events such as Indy 300. Security officers are responsible for the patrolling or guarding other person's premises or property. In some cases officers are privy to information and premises which can lead to easy access to criminal activities such as robbery and possibly manipulation. Licensing of security officers benefits the community, both physically and emotionally, through reassurance that a licensed officer is suitable to operate in that position and by ensuring that they have adequate training to efficiently complete the job. The Australian lnstitute of Criminology has produced several reports on regulation and the security industry, including Regulation Private Security Industry in Australia83 which discusses recent problems in the industry, including: o o o o prosecutions of leading security companies for misrepresentation of patrol and alarm monitoring services; corrupt relations between police and security officers trading in confidential information and preferential treatment for security repair firms; an enormous waste of police resources responding to false alarms; and shoot outs between armed robbers and cash-in-transit personnel involving death, injury and serious threats to public safetl4 • While these incidents are not a reflection on the whole industry, they are of sufficient concern to warrant continued regulation of persons who are in positions of responsibility, who require adequate training for the protection of themselves and of the general public. The above cases demonstrate the potential for abuse inherent in the security industrl 5 • All stakeholders agree that licensing of security officers is appropriate. Some stakeholders however submit that exemptions are discriminatory, may create a competitive disadvantage and that all officers that come in contact with the public should be trained and licensed appropriately. However, most were satisfied with the exemptions for police, military and other similar organisations, and with the factory guard exemption, provided the person only watches one site belonging to his/her employer. There were very strong submissions received to indicate that alarm installers and repairers, locksmiths, security consultants, security trainers, control room and CCTV (or close circuit television) monitoring staff and other similar staff should be required to hold a licence under the Act. While ~l Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, Regulating Private Security in Australia, November 1998, Tim Prenzh:r and Rick Sarrc M4 Ibid, at p3 "S Ibid Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 57 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulatioll J995 officers who respond to alarm call-outs fall within the definition of security officer under the Act, the persons who actually install alanns are privy to security access codes for property and as such are in a position of trust. Very good arguments have been put forward from members of the industry and the Queensland Police Service in relation to the potential misuse of infonnation by alarm installers. The Australian Security Industry Association (ASIAL) in its response to the draft PST Report concurs with the recommendation that the impact of expanding the definition of security officer to include other pertinent occupations should be explored further by the Office of Fair Trading. A submission received from QR, or Queensland Rail acknowledged that the Act does not apply to QR employees as officers of the State of Queensland 86 • However, it submits that if the Act were amended to apply to QR employees it has concerns that a large number of QR positions may be considered as security responsibilities. As such removal of the exemption would add substantially to QR's cost burden through the additional need to licence, train and administer these staff. Particularly, QR refers to the recommendation that the Office of Fair Trading consider the impact of expanding the defmition to include CCTV monitoring staff, stating that QR employees are responsible for monitoring approximately 3,000 CCTV cameras throughout the railway network at approximately 120 Citytrain railway stations, in approximately 85% of trains and at 85% of all stations with car parks. This report makes no suggestion that the exemptions contained in Section 4(3) of the Act should be amended. However, it is noted that QR has requested that the Office of Fair Trading formally consult with it if any change to these exemptions is considered. Submissions received from the Master Locksmiths Association of Australasia Limited ('Master Locksmiths') object to the licensing of locksmiths. The Master Locksmiths has a policy of conducting criminal history checks before admitting persons to membership and any conviction for offences such as theft would generally result in refusal. Master Locksmiths refers specifically to the New South Wales model which it submits is imposing large costs upon business, particularly small business and produced no public benefit in respect of locksmithing. Master Locksmiths submits that it could not be demonstrated that any public benefit would result if licensing of locksmiths, particularly the lack of public complaints against locksmith would not warrant any increased restriction on competition. Master Locksmiths further submit that if locksmiths were licensed and other sectors that compete with them for business such as key cutters, motoring organisations that open locked vehicles, hardware stores that sell locks, tradesmen that fit locks to buildings etc. arc not licensed then locksmiths will be placed at a severe competitive disadvantage. In addition to these comments, Master Locksmiths states that in the normal course of business locksmiths consult and sell. If qualifications in these fields in addition to locksmithing trade qualification become necessary, then entry into the industry will become too difficult causing a loss of employment and a reduction in community security. In relation to the age restriction contained in the Act Master Locksmiths submit that it must be recognised that the trade based industry of locksmithing would not be able to train apprentices in the industry thereby potentially reducing the numbers of apprentices required to maintain the necessary KI> Section 4(3)(c) of the ACI- Who is a security provider Public Benefit Test Report- Appendix A Page 58 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 skill base compromising the security of the community. The Office of Fair Trading should give consideration to whether or not the objectives of the Act are being compromised due to some security personnel falling outside its scope. It is recommended that consideration be given to expanding the definition to include some or all of these security related personnel. 11.1.1 Community Costs and Benefits The community benefits from licensing of security officers as it ensures persons meet certain community expectations that security officers are trained adequately. Licensing under the Act reassures the public that security officers are responsible persons and appropriate to hold such a position. Consumers are provided with a greater level of protection through identifying and sanctioning security officers who do not comply with the Act. The licensing requirements promotes confidence in the community that security officers are adequately trained to guard and patrol private and commercial premises and can react appropriately when incidents arise. The cost to consumers is minimal, but some small percentage of licensing ($91.50 for individuals and $459 for firms annually) and training costs (average of $625.58 87 ) will inevitably be passed from the licensees to the end consumer in the form of an increased cost of service. Industry The industry benefits from licensing of security officers as it ensures there is a level playing field for all industry members. The training requirement ensures that the services provided by security providers are of a high standard thereby increasing efficiency and promoting the industry and lifting its reputation. The cost to industry includes the licensing fee of $9 I.50 for individuals or $459 for firms, which is borne directly by the licensee as are the costs of attending training courses. There is a cost for inappropriate persons who may want to enter the industry, in that they will be excluded from entering the market and potentially reduce the munbers of participants or prospective employees in the industry. Government The cost to Government of licensing security officers includes the administrative cost of checking licence applications and renewals to determine applicant's appropriateness. The cost includes wages of staff used to assess applications, the cost of obtaining criminal history reports from the Queensland Police and the cost of producing individual licences. The Government also incurs the cost of compliance and monitoring the industry, which is, to some extent, offset by the receipt of licence fees. ~7 Based on average cost 0 f training through Registered Training Organisations for security officer/crowd controller training Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 59 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 The licensing requirements in the Act provide a greater level of protection to consumers by identifying and addressing security officers who do not comply. The Government aims to provide a safer community for Queenslanders, and it is contributing toward this priority by producing a skilled security industry that protects rather than contributes toward injuries of the public. Conclusion Overall the licensing of security officers produces a greatcr benefit to all stakeholders which outweighs the cost to the community. The liccnsing restriction enhances the reputation and skills of the industry, increases protection to the community thereby meeting the objectives of the Act and promotes the Govcrnment's priority of a safer community. The licensing restriction for security officers should remain unchanged. 11.2 'I'raining Requirements The prescribed training requirements for security officers are the same as that for crowd controllers and are discussed above at Section 10.2. 11.3 Exemptions The Act exempts persons who, as an employee, patrol or guard an employer's property. 1111 The type of persons exempt, as a result of this provision include in~house security officers, factory guards or those engaged in cash-in-transit security. When the Act was introduced, it was considered that large employers would not employ security officers who would potentially harm their reputation through improper conduct. 89 Most stakeholders felt strongly that there should be no exemptions under the Act and that any person who performs the function of a security provider should be required to complete training, meet the suitability requirements that enable the person to hold an appropriate licence. In-house security officers include those persons employed to patrol or guard property belonging to the officer's employer, which includes large retail department stores and factory guards. There have been no complaints received in relation to the activities of in-house security officers. In-house security officers are usually subject to rigorous security procedures and background checks, which relate specifically to the property the person is protecting or guarding. Cash-in-transit security personnel usually specialise in knowingly transporting other person's cash for a fee or reward 9o • Of the 1,714 security service businesses at the end of June 1999, there were 26 8~ Section 7(2) - Who is a security officer 89 90 As at 51, p6428 Report of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, Industrial Matters Relating to the Cash-in-transitIndustry Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 60 National Competition Policy Review of the Sec/II'ity Providers Act 1993 and the Security Provider'S Regulation 1995 businesses specialising in cash-in-transit or armoured car services,}l. Most cash-in-transit officers carry weapons. Under the Weapons Act all persons who wish to hold a gun licence must declare the purpose for requiring a licence. For cash-in-transit officers, the p~ose would be for security reasons, either in the capacity of a security guard or a security organisation 2. It is a requirement under the Weapons Act that all persons requiring a licence for the purpose of operating as a security guard or organisation must first hold a security officers licence under the Security Providers Act 1993. Therefore, cash-in-transit officers who are required hold a weapon as part of their core duties must first obtain a licence pursuant to the Act. The exemption for cash-in-transit officers does not in itself completely exempt this group from holding a licence, as they still require a security officer licence if he/she wishes to hold the weapon's licence, which is a prerequisite for cash-in-transit security officers. It not an ideal situation that cash-in-transit officers are exempt from the Act, but by default and as a result of other legislation, namely the Weapons Act, are required to hold a licence. Given that the issue of increasing the restriction by removing the exemption for cash-in-transit officers is outside the scope of this Review it is recommended that the licensing of 'cash-in-transit' officers be considered as part of a further investigation. In-house security officers can have a more detailed knowledge of the premises of the employer and may provide more efficient security services than a provider who was not specialised. A perceived benefit to industry is that exempt officers do not have to meet appropriate person test and therefore have a cost saving in relation to avoiding licensing and training requirements under the Act. Normally employers conduct in-house training for their employees, which shifts the burden of training costs from the employee to the employer. The Government benefits slightly in that it does not incur the administrative and [mancial burden of licensing in-house security officers. The costs to the community are that in some circumstances the employee security officers may not be appropriate persons and the exemption does not ensure that employee security officers are adequately trained. These exemptions create an unbalanced playing field for other industry members. In-house security officers may not be recognised for their services if they have not completed training pursuant to the Act and appropriate person checks when seeking re-employment in the industry. There may be a cost to Government in that it may be seen as favouring large firms or organisations by allowing security officers to operate without appropriate training and character checks. Conclusion The exemption for in-house security officers appear to be appropriate, considering there have been minimal complaints in relation to this group and there would be an overall cost to stakeholders if the Government were to increase its licensing restriction by removing these exemptions. in Queensland, December 1996 ~I Australian Bureau of Statistics, Service Industries - Selected Business Services, 1998-99, p2 92 Licences are called security organisations firms under the Weapons Act and are called security firms under the Act Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 61 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act J993 and the Security Providers Regulation J995 The exemptions overall do not restrict consumer choice and should not impact on the price paid by consumers as a result of employing in-house security officers. The exemptions do not compromise the Act to the point that warrants further restrictions being placed on this section of the security industry. The licensing of 'cash-in-transit' officers should be consider as part of a further investigation. 11.4 Conc~usions and Recommendations - Securitv Officers .: It is concluded that: ...J ..J the security officer licensing requirements be retained; and exemptions remain unchanged at this time. It is recommended that the Office of Fair Trading a consider the issues, costs and benefits of expanding the defmition of security officer to include any or all of the following: a alarm installers and repairers; o locksmiths; o security consultants; o security trainers; and o control room and CCTV monitoring staff and other similar staff; and consider licensing' cash-in-transit' officers as part of a further investigation. o Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 62 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Prodders Regulation 1995 12 Security Firm§ 12. J Licensing The Act provides that all security firms must be licensed. A 'security firm' is defined as a person who, or partnership that, engages in the business of supplying, for reward, the services of crowd controllers, security officers or private investigators to other persons. 93 A person must not, directly or indirectly, engage another person to carry out, for reward, the functions of a security provider unless the other person holds the appropriate liccncc~4. Unless a person holds the appropriate licence, the person is not entitled to any reward for carrying out the functions of a security provider. The maximum penalty for a breach of section 9(2) is $7,500 for an individual and $37,500 95 for a corporation. It is also an offence for an entity to carry on the business ofa firm under a name other than that stated on the firm's licence96 , which also carries a maximum penalty of$I,500 for an individual or $7,500 for a corporation97 • Each person who is an officer of a corporation, or partner in a partnership where the corporation or partnership applies for a security firm licence, must be an appropriate person to be such an officer if a licence is granted98 • A person or a partnership may apply for a security firm licence 99 and the Chief Executive has power to make inquiries about a person to assist in determining appropriateness includin requests to the Commissioner for Police for a written report about the person's criminal historylOm Each security firm licence specifies conditions, which corresPo0nd to the functions supplied . by the firm of a crowd controller, private investigator or security officer 0 I. The same procedure is followed for both firms and individuals in relation to decisions on applications, conditions of licence, amendment of conditions and annual renewal of licence. The same grounds (and procedures) apply to firms for suspension, cancellation or refusal to renew a licence, automatic canccllation upon conviction, rights of appeal to the court and hearing procedures. These issues are discussed further in Section 9 ofthis Report. Section 54 of the Act empowers the Governor in Council to make regulations for the purpose of this Act to regulate the conduct of security providers. Section 3 of the Regulation states that an application for a corporation must be accompanied by three tcstimonials from reputable persons about the nominee's character and a certified copy of the nominee's birth certificate. These provisions Section 8 - What is a security firm Section 9(2) - Requirement to be licensed qS Section 181 B of the Penalties alld Sentences Act 1992 - Corporation fines under penalty provision qb Section 9 of the Regulation - Office to carry on business in another name '17 Ibid qg Section 13 - Entitlement to licences - corporations or firms q9 Section IO( I)(b) - Application for licence 100 Section 12 -Inquiries about person's appropriateness to hold licence 101 Ibid q3 q4 Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 63 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Ac/ 1993 and the Secllrity Providers Regula/ioll 1995 apply to individuals also and are discussed further in Section 9 of this Report. An applicant for a firm licence must nominate an officer or the corporation or a partnership to be the firm's nominee and if a firm is an individual, the applicant does not have a nominee 102 • The nominee is responsible for completing and signing all documents required under the Act on behalf of the corporation or partnership and must ensure the corporation or partnership complies with the requirements of the Act 103 . The nominee must notify the Chief Executive within seven days of any change in the licensee's particulars names, addresses and any charges against or convictions against either the corporation or an officer of the corporation or partnership for a disqualifying offence, as listed in Appendix D. There was little discussion when the Bill was introduced about the objective of introducing the requirement that security firms hold licences. However, given that each firm licence contains conditions specifying that only specific security functions can be performed, it can be assumed that firms were intended to act as a filter between industry and clients to ensure that only licensed security providers were contracted to specific clients. For example, a hotel may hire a security firm to provide crowd control services to the hotel. This situation eases the burden on the hotel of screening every crowd controller to ensure appropriate licences are held. The rationale behind requiring the finn to be licensed is to ensure that they are aware of their obligations and only employ licensed personnel to provide specific services, without the client having to worry about doing licence checks. Most stakeholders agreed that the definition of security firms and the requirement to be licensed was appropriate. In relation to the offence provision, some stakeholders suggest that persons who are caught unlicensed have manipulated the word 'reward'. This can be used as a defence by firms, who may argue that unlicensed security providers are not paid a 'reward' for the service they provide and therefore have not fulfilled that element of the offence, preventing prosecution action from being taken. Suggestions were made that the word 'remuneration' is more appropriate than 'reward', however, this issue is outside the scope of this review. It is recommended that further analysis if this issue be undertaken by the Office of Fair Trading. One stakeholder commented that sole operators cannot provide the necessary resources to monitor and control their operation to a level that safeguards clients against possible professional indemnity issues and should therefore be required to hold a firm's licence. The comment was made that sale operators are reducing prices and taking short cuts in ethical practices, abusing the system and disadvantaging reputable finns, which is giving sole operators a competitive advantage. Given that the objects of requiring a firm to hold a licence is not explicit, it is assumed that the objective is to ensure that firms who supply specific security providers to clients are appropriate and accountable for the actions of their employees and, particularly, for ensuring all security providers are licensed. It should be noted that firms' nominees are not required to hold individual licences also. It would seem that sole operators would not be providing the services of more than one security provider 102 103 Section 5 of the Regulation - Security finn's nominee Section 6 of the Regulation - Nominee's duties Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 64 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Secllrity Providers Regulation 1995 and are not required to hold a firm licence. However, if that person is in fact providing other security providers to clients they would be required, as an individual, to hold a security firm licence. 12.1.1 Benefits and Costs The benefits to consumers of requiring firms to hold licences is to ensure that security providers employed by firms to carry out security functions hold the appropriate licences and are adequately trained to fulfil these specific duties. There is a benefit to both Government and consumers in that firms providing security services are easily identified when incidents occur, which ensures that consumers are adequately protected and that the government meets its priority commitment of providing a safe community for Queenslanders. The benefits to industry are that it provides a level playing field for all firms who wish to provide security services to clients. It acts as a further screening test to ensures that only appropriate persons operate within the industry. There is a greater chance that unlicensed personnel will be identified by a nominee of a firm who is responsible for ensuring all employees are appropriately licensed. This is facilitated by the use of a firm register where details of each security provider employed by the firm are recorded. Firm registers are discussed further below in Section 14.2 of this Report. The cost to firms includes the cost of licensing fees as discussed above and the cost of providing testimonials and a birth certificate of the firm's nominee. These costs are considered minimal especially given that there is no requirement for a firm to be a corporation. Government costs include the administrative cost of checking applications for appropriateness, conducting criminal history checks on relevant persons from the Queensland Police Service and the cost of producing individual licences. The Government also incurs the cost of compliance and monitoring the industry. Conclusion The benefits of requiring firms to hold a licence outweigh the costs and requirement that firms hold appropriate licences should be retained. 112.2 Other Issues The Queensland Police Service did not believe the current definition was appropriate, as it does not include organisations which provide services such as locksmiths, alarm installers and repairers, security consultants, security trainers, control room and close circuit television (or 'CCTV') monitoring staff and other like functions. Requiring these persons to hold licences would ensure they are subject to appropriate person tests and accountability mechanisms similar to other security providers. The rationale for requiring persons to be licensed is that it will ensure these persons, who often work in highly trusted and confidential environments are properly vetted. This would reduce incidents previously experienced in Queensland where, for instance, alarm installers, after installing an alarm at particular premises later return and steal property using the knowledge gained from Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 65 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 installing the alarm. The issue of requiring further occupations to be licensed is outside the scope of this review. However, given the relevance of the issue raised by the Queensland Police Service, it is recommended that the Office of Fair Trading conduct further investigations to consider expanding the scope of definitions contained in the Act to include appropriate security services that currently fall outside the scope of the Act. t 2.3 Conclusions and Recommendations - Security ... Firms It is concluded that the benefits of requiring firms to hold a licence outweigh the costs to stakeholders overall and this requirement should be retained. It is recommended that the Office of Fair Trading: o D consider expanding the scope of firm definitions contained in the Act to include appropriate security firm services such as locksmiths, alarm installers and repairers, security consultants, security trainers, control room and CCTV monitoring staff and other like occupations; and analyse the use of 'reward' in relation to security providers to determine whether or not this is a real issue in the market and if so, whether there is a more appropriate word to be used, such as 'remuneration' . Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 66 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 lost 113. i ice sing Is~ues Security providers are subject to a number of ongoing requirements under the Act. Lucence Renewaj Currently, all licence holders are required to renew their licence on an annual basis. As previously discussed, the option to renew licences every one, two or three years will be introduced. Ongoing obligations imposed on licence holders include a requirement in the Regulation that licensees must give the Chief Executive written notice of any change in licensee's particulars within seven days of the change. For the purposes of the Act, the term 'particulars' applies to individuals, corporations and partnerships. The requirement that licensees advise the Chief Executive of any change in particulars is reasonable and ensures the integrity ofthe database oflicensed security providers. At present, approximately 10% of renewal applications to be randomly checked for criminal history. There is concern that this may be compromising the objectives of the Act in ensuring that only appropriate people continue to operate. The Queensland Police Service docs not consider the objects arc being met to an acceptable standard in relation to inappropriate persons entering and operating in the industry. It has advised that it is aware of criminal interests infiltrating the security industry and using the role of security providers as a method for the commission of property and other related crimes. The fact that 10% of renewal applications are checked, rather than 100% may be contributing toward this situation. Stakeholders submit that anything less than a full 100% security check is failing the community and contributing to the problems within the industry. Specifically, the Department of Industrial Relations which encompasses WorkCover Queensland submits that it regularly engages the services of private investigators. As such it places reliance on the Office afFair Trading as the licensing body to ensure that only appropriate persons enter and operate in the investigations industry. It specifically highlighted that WorkCovcr Queensland has an expectation that criminal history checks are carried out on all persons requesting a private investigator's licence. The Department of Industrial Relations supports the recommendation that the Office of Fair Trading consider its current practice in relation to the proportion of criminal history checks conducted on renewals. Conclusion The current practice of the Office of Fair Trading conducting criminal history checks on 10% of renewal applications only should be investigated further by the Office of Fair Trading to detennine the costs and benefits of increasing the percentage of applicants subjected to criminal history checks on licence renewal. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 67 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act/993 and the Security Providers Regulation /995 13.2 Grounds for Suspension, Cancellation or l~efusal to Rene,,: A licence may be suspended, cancelled or not renewed on the following grounds: o o Q o The licence was obtained on the basis of incorrect or misleading information; or The licensee has contravened a condition of the licence; or The licensee has committed an offence against the Act; or The licensee (or another person who is required to be an appropriate person such as a company director) is no longer an appropriate person. All applicants who have a licence suspended, cancelled or not renewed by the Chief Executive have a right to appeal, as outlined in Section 7 of this Report. Most stakeholders submit that the grounds for suspension, cancellation or refusal to renew are satisfactory and appropriate and benefit the industry and community by keeping strict control of the industry. Some stakeholders suggested that additional grounds should be included so that convIctions in industrial courts and breaches of workplace health and safety laws are considered. The Chief Executive is able to consider these any convictions that may impact on the person's appropriateness, when deciding whether to suspend, cancel, refuse to renew or revoke a licence on grounds of inappropriateness, similar to the requirements specified when the Chief Executive considering appropriateness when granting a licence. The Queensland Police Service agree that the current grounds are appropriate, but that suspension and removal of persons holding security providers licences should be based upon a finding of guilt rather than having a conviction recorded. It also considers that there should be a provision to require security providers to report to the Chief Executive the fact that they have been convicted of a disqualifying offence, with an offence for non-compliance. In relation to this issue, it is an offence under the Act for a licensee, who fails to notify the Chief Executive of any change in particulars including issues affecting continued appropriateness. This provision t04 .requires licensees to advise the Chief Executive within seven days of a change against or conviction of an individual for a disqualifying offence and attracts a maximum penalty of $750 for an individual and $3,500 for a . corporation 105). It is considered that the grounds for cancellation, suspension or refusal to renew licences are appropriate and allows the Chief Executive to consider other convictions not specified in the Act as disqualifying offences, if the offence itself is relevant to the person's appropriateness. Conclusion 104 lOS Section 12 of the Regulation - Change to infonnation about licensee in accordance with the sl8 I B(3) of the Penalties and Sentences Act /992 Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 68 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation /995 The grounds for cancellation, suspension or refusal to renew are appropriate and should remam unchanged. 13.3 COf~cjusions and [{e~()mmendations- Post Licensing It is concluded that the grounds for cancellation, suspension or refusal to renew are appropriate and should remain unchanged. The current practice of the Office of Fair Trading conducting criminal history checks on 10% of renewal applications only should be investigated further by the Office afFair Trading to determine the costs and benefits of increasing the percentage of applicants subjected to criminal history checks on licence renewal. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 69 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the SeclIrity Providers Regulatioll 1995 ]4 Business Co duct Restrictions Identification Requirements for Cro\vd Controllers Section 47 of the Act requires all crowd controllers, other than bodyguards, to wear clearly visible identification at all times while on duty. The identification bears a number, which is allocated to each crowd controller when commencing dUly on any given date. The crowd controller's licence number and name is not displayed on the identification. Section 19( I) of the Regulation states that a crowd controller, other than bodyguards, must wear identification on the chest of his/her clothing. It also provides that the identification must contain a number at least 3cm high and 4mm thick with the word 'SECURITY' in letters at least lcm high and 2mm thick written in black on white background. Each crowd controller at a public place must wear a different number. The purpose of requiring crowd controllers to wear identification is to enable patrons to identify crowd controllers who display unacceptable behaviour lO6 • When the Act was introduced the importance of clearly visible identification was recognised during debate by Mr Pearce. Mr Pearce considered that awareness among security providers that could be identified by reference to a number, would lead to greater accountability107 and would act as a deterrent to prevent improper conduct 108 • The intention of the requirement to wear identification was in an attempt to curb the trend of gratuitous violence lO9 • Most stakeholders commented that identification cards were appropriate and contribute toward credibility, accountability and professionalism of the industry. Stakeholders also commented that the requirement that crowd controllers wear identification cards would be flawed if it was not combined with an adequate register system. Most industry stakeholders believe it is an important requirement that identification should not contain the licence number or name of the crowd controller, to maintain a degree of autonomy and to protect their personal privacy. However, some submissions considered that identification should disclose the full name and licence number of crowd controllers. At the other end of the spectrum, some stakeholders submitted that there should be no identification. A few stakeholders commented that crowd controllers should not have to wear numbers as it exposes them to vindictive or vexatious patrons. The stakeholders who commented in this regard did, however, recognise that there was no alternative to the current identification system. On the other hand, some stakeholders believe a name 106 107 As per 5 I, Mr Nuttall (Member for Sandgate), p6413 As per 51, Mr Pearce (Member for Fitzroy), p 6425 10M Ibid 109 Ibid Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 70 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Ac/ 1993 and the Security Providers Regula/ioll 1995 badge would make it easier for police and investigations officers to identify crowd controllers. The current number based identification system appears to be a good mediwn. The Queensland Police Service submits that the identification requirement is not effective or appropriate and that a requirement to wear photographic identification would assist to identify and investigate crowd controllers who are acting in an inappropriate manner. The Queensland Police Service has submitted that anecdotal evidence suggests that discrepancies have been found by police officers between registers and witness accounts in that descriptions of security personnel recorded as wearing a particular identification number at the time of the incident differed significantly to those provided by the complainant or witness. It is unclear whether members of the public know what the number is for and it is acknowledged that the current identification system does not indicate whether or not the crowd controller is in fact licensed. The costs of producing identification cards are minimal. There is a slight cost to Government in tenns of monitoring the industry for compliance to ensure that crowd controllers comply with the requirement to wear identification. The Office of Fair Trading has found there is a high level of compliance with the requirement that crowd controllers wear identification, with very few persons being prosecuted for breaches of this offence. The benefits include ease of access for the public and officials such as police officers and investigation officers to identify crowd controllers involved in incidents. The current system assists to identify persons acting as crowd controllers for both compliance purposes and for identification of crowd controllers involved in incidents, which may occur in a public place or on premises. Incidents may occur due to perceived inappropriateness of the crowd controller, or for witness purposes. The industry benefits from this requirement as its reputation increases as the community perceives security providers as professional persons who accept the accountability and responsibility that the identification and licence implies. Conclusion The benefits to all stakeholders outweigh the minimal costs to industry. The requirement contributes to the objectives of the Act by ensuring the public and officials are able to identify crowd controllers who act inappropriately and also, through the relative anonymity of the number based system, reduces the possibility of personal threat to crowd controllers by patrons. The identification requirement contributes toward the objectives of the Act and the benefits of this system outweigh any associated costs. 14.2 Registers Section 54 of the Act provides for regulations to be made regulating the conduct of security providers. Section 17 of the Regulation requires an entity that, directly or indirectly, engages a person to carry out, for reward, the functions of a crowd controller at a public place, to maintain a register as a "signon" and "sign-off' point for crowd controllers on duty. The register must contain each crowd Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 71 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 controller's name, residential address and licence number, the firm the crowd controller is employed by (if applicable), the crowd controllers identification number for each shift, and the date, start and finish times of each period of duty at the public place. The register must also contain details of all incidents where a person is injured or where a person is removed from a public place by the crowd controller. Registers are open to inspection by the police and authorised officers under the Act. Section 18 of the Regulation states that a security finn must keep a register of security providers employed by the firm. The register for firms must contain the name, licence number and expiry date, date of commencement and, when applicable, of termination of employment of each security provider. The firm must allow the register to be inspected by the Chief Executive, an inspector or the police and must keep the register for seven years after the last entry. The purpose of the requirement for registers is to ensure crowd controllers and their employers are held accountable for any incidents that may occur such as the removal of patrons or violent episodes110. The reason for requiring firms to keep registers of employees is similar, in that it ensures that firms are held accountable for the activities of their employees and to assist with compliance monitoring. Specifically the requirement to record licence numbers on the registers ensures that all employees hold appropriate licences. The Register for crowd controllers must be combined with a number system of identification. The Register completes the identification process by ensuring the personal details of crowd controllers are contained within it This system gives some level of anonymity of crowd controllers from the public, but ensures that enforcement personnel are able to locate crowd controllers when necessary. The Register for Security Firms is kept to ensure firms only employ licensed personnel and that persons are easily identified if and or when incidents occur. Firms must be aware of the licensing status of all employees and are responsible for ensuring that all employees are licensed under the Act lll . Most stakeholders were supportive of registers as a means of verifYing the legitimacy of their operations and for safety and identification purposes. However, some stakeholders submit that it is only effective to the point where the person entering information on the register is honest and reliable. The benefit of maintaining registers is to maintain a record of incidents. Such a record can become vital evidence in substantiating claims. Correctly maintained registers can become vital evidence in substantiating occurrence of incidents in both criminal and civil matters. Registers allow patrons, employers and officials to have ready simple records of events and of crowd controllers who are on duty. Firm registers ensure that a record of all employees is kept Registers assist by allowing inspectors to easily monitor for compliance and enable police to make inquiries following reported incidents. Security fmn registers benefit the firm as it acts as a quality assurance measure to ensure that firms As per 51, MrNuttall, Member for Sandgate, p6413 Section 9(2) - Requirement to be licensed - a person must not. .. engage another person... unless the other person holds the appropriate licence 110 111 Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 72 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Pmviders Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 are aware of the licensing status of all security staff. The public is reassured that crowd controllers and finns are responsible and accountable for their actions and that of their employees, which can verify the legitimacy of operation. The keeping of registers can protect the integrity of individual crowd controllers, the community and the venue itself by providing a chronological and accurate history of events. The Government benefits from the requirement that firms and crowd controllers complete registers in that it assists in promoting a safer community by ensuring identification of security providers who can then be held accountable for their actions. The costs of keeping registers to industry include the cost to purchase an appropriate register. Crowd controller registers are available through industry associations for a cost of approximately $25 plus GST. In the case of finn registers, the firm, operating either a database or a manual system to keep the records, incurs costs. The cost to Government includes the cost of compliance and monitoring of registers. There is a negligible cost to consumers associated with this requirement. There is a cost to crowd controllers or finns who are not operating legitimately, in that they will be exposed with the potential for penalties to be incurred and individual licences to be suspended or revoked. Conclusion The benefits of maintaining a finn register outweigh the costs, producing a net benefit to all stakeholders. Therefore it is recommended that the current requirement that a Crowd Controller Register and a Security Finn Register be maintained in specific circumstances remain unchanged. J4.3 Conclusions - Business Conduct Restrictions It is concluded that: • • the benefits of requiring crowd controllers to wear identification to all stakeholders outweigh the minimal costs to industry and should be retained; and the benefits of maintaining both crowd controller and firm registers, where appropriate outweigh the costs to all stakeholders and should be retained. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 73 National Competition Policy Review of the Sec/lrity Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulatioll 1995 15 Regulatory Alternatives A number of alternative, less restrictive options to the current regulatory regime are being considered during the course of this review. Discussion of the costs and benefits associated with each of these options follows. 15.1 J\1andatory Code of Conduct . Consideration was given to a mandatory code of conduct as an alternative to the existing legislation. Codes of conduct are increasingly being used by government and industry as an alternative means of promoting fair trading and ethical conduct within an industry. Codes of conduct can be a more costeffective and flexible form of regulating an industry than a regulatory regime involving registration or licensing processes and conduct requirements. Legislative backing is sometimes needed to make a code of conduct effective, for example to ensure sufficient coverage of an industry or to provide enforcement provisions. Mandatory codes of conduct ensure that full participation is achieved from all persons who operate within the industry. The introduction of a mandatory code of conduct would provide industry wide coverage and would provide a consistent approach in terms of requirements and obligations. The development of a code of conduct would include wide consultation with industry, consumer and government groups and would outline whom the code of conduct will apply to. Implementation of a code of conduct would include a large public campaign to inform consumers and industry of its value, requirements and procedures. It will include industry standards, complaint and dispute procedures and a plan for administration of the code of conduct. The code of conduct would include requirements for reporting and for monitoring the code of conduct for compliance. It would also include procedures for making necessary amendments, which would involve consultation with stakeholders and adequate public notification. A code of conduct would have to comply with the laws of competition and fair trading l12 • A mandatory code of conduct would incorporate penalties for industry members who breach the code of conduct or who do not comply with any order made to remedy a consumer complaint. The code of conduct would provide for reviews at specified intervals. Reviews should consider the effectiveness of the code of conduct and its complaint handling procedures, the levels of compliance in the industry, administration ofthe code of conduct and public visibility. A mandatory code of conduct for security providers would have legislative backing and be made under the Fair Trading Act 1989. Under this model, there would be no licensing or registration 112 Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs, Fair Trading Codes ofCOliduct: Why Have Them, How to Prepare Them, A guide prepared by Commonwealth, Stale and Territory Consumer Affairs Agencies, October 1996 Public Benefit Test Report- Appendix A Page 74 National Competition Policy Review of the Sl!cllrity Providers Act /993 and the Security Providers Regulation /995 system and everyone would be able to operate within the industry. Those persons who do choose to operate as security providers, as defined by the code of conduct, would be required to comply with the requirements of the mandatory code of conduct. This mandatory code of conduct could include similar business conduct requirements to those currently in force, particularly in relation to wearing of identification by crowd controllers and the keeping of registers and would have provision for additional conduct requirements to be prescribed within the code of conduct. A breach of a mandatory code of conduct prescribed by regulation under the Fair Trading Act 1989 attract penalties that would apply to persons who breach the code of conduct. Under a mandatory code of conduct other remedies would also be available in the event that a person contravenes the code of conduct including injunctions, actions for damages and compensation or other remedial orders. Private investigators operate within common law and statute requirements that ensure private investigators conduct their business in a way that protects the privacy and contractual arrangements of consumers who choose to do business with a private investigator, as discussed in section 8.1. Introduction of a mandatory code of conduct to regulate the business conduct of private investigators would create an additional burden on private investigators. It may be unnecessary to require private investigators to comply with additional business conduct provisions, given the current regulation and common law responsibilities applicable to this group and the fact that the Office of Fair Trading has received negligible complaints in relation to the conduct of private investigators. There was no support from stakeholders for a stand-alone code of conduct. Some stakeholders were vehemently opposed to a mandatory code, indicating that its introduction would clearly lead to a drop in standards within the industry. It is perceived that the industry has suffered due to the public perception that the industry is comprised of unskilled, poorly educated and badly remunerated employees with little or no specific training. The Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union ('the Union') opposed replacing the current regulation with a mandatory code of conduct. The rationale behind this opposition includes the potential for a message to be sent to the industry that regulation was relaxed where, in the Union's opinion, it needs to be more stringent. The Union considered that legal remedies under a mandatory code of conduct would not be adequate to maximise safety of the public and property and to achieve honest and reasonable behaviour throughout the industry. Comments were further made that the courts are generally reluctant to grant injunctions unless the defendant has been previously convicted of similar offences. If the current regulatory regime for convicting persons who do not comply with the Act were removed, injunctions would be more difficult to obtain. Actions for damages are expensive for victims and can take several years and therefore relatively few actions are taken. Many security personnel are aware of this and are unlikely to be deterred from breaching a code of conduct. The Queensland Police Service considers that a mandatory code of conduct may assist in monitoring and regulating the industry but would not be as effective as a regulatory body overseeing the industry in terms of inappropriate or unprofessional behaviour. A few stakeholders submitted that a mandatory code of conduct that incorporated licensing criteria, Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 75 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Provider's Regulation 1995 similar to the current licensing system, might be viable. They recognised that persons entering the industry must be identified to ensure they are monitored for compliance with the mandatory code of conduct, which would assist with establishing accountability and ensuring public safety. The Australian Security Industry Association ('ASIAL') submit that a legislated licensing regime supplemented by a code administered and driven by an approved security organisation is a workable option and that the ASIAL has been working with regulators nationally on such an approach that can be adopted in each state for national consistency. ASIAL submits that its co-regulatory role in New South Wales is effective and does have teeth. It submits that the compliance and complaint management system in New South Wales is superior to any other fonn of control because the industry knows the players, the scams, the failings and can expeditiously rectify market failure. The Master Locksmith Association of Australasia submits supports the conclusion that a mandatory code of conduct is not a viable alternative. It considers that codes may subvert the democratic process because they are made by unelected persons, have potential to reflect views of large organisations and include requirements that are too onerous for small business. It uses the New South Wales model as an example where the co-regulatory body demands independent auditing of every licensed business by desktop every year and by face to face audit every 5 years. It suggests that these audits are exhaustive and tend to cover areas such as industrial relations, occupational health and safety and financial returns that have nothing to do with service to the client or the community, they take many hours to complete at a cost in excess of $100 per hour. It states that a preliminary report indicates that in New South Wales in excess of 80% of businesses fail the initial face to face audit mainly for failure to strictly adhere to the details of industrial awards (although employees are generally paid higher than awards overall) thereby incurring additional costs to achieve results that, in the vast majority of cases, are of no benefit to the community nor the employee concerned. As the mandatory code of conduct model would not require industry members to become licensed, the barriers of entry into the industry would be reduced and there would be less administrative and financial burden on industry participants or government. Some of the costs highlighted by stakeholders include the large fmancial and administrative burden on Government firstly to develop the code of conduct and then to ensure appropriate implementation. There would be additional financial burden on Government to ensure operators adhere to the mandatory code of conduct. Honest operators could be disadvantaged by low cost unscrupulous operators not fulfilling obligations and, therefore, undercutting legitimate operators. Comments were made that a code of conduct would not ensure that the objectives ofthe objectives are met. The cost to security personnel may be in the fonn of lower wages and conditions due to the increase in competition with unscrupulous operators under-cutting legitimate operators. I The benefits higWighted by stakeholders included a reduced administrative burden on Government if the licensing requirements were removed with a slight benefit to industry also from the reduction in licensing fees. A mandatory code would presumably include a mandatory training component, and as such the cost to industry of training courses would be likely to remain the same as the current regime. Under a mandatory code of conduct, it is likely that Government would transfer existing resources into Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 76 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation J995 development, implementation and monitoring of a mandatory code of conduct. Additional costs may be needed at the initial development stage to ensure a adequate review of the industry requirements is conducted. It is likely that the objectives of the Act could continue to be met under this form of regulation, but may not be as effective as the current regulatory regime. The Government would experience short to long term delays in developing new policies and processes for ensuring industry compliance with the code of conduct, which may have the effect of reducing resources and time allocated to monitor the industry. New training would be required for administrative officers and inspectors to ensure awareness of the new requirements to ensure adequate compliance and monitoring of the industry. While it is recognised that some benefit could be gained from creating a mandatory code of conduct over business conduct and perhaps ethical and professional standards, there are currently conduct provisions contained in the Act that require security providers to wear identification and complete registers in certain circumstances. The benefit to industry and consumers of a mandatory code of conduct would be the ease of incorporating additional business conduct provisions that may arise from time to time. It is considered that there is not sufficient justification or requirements for further business conduct provisions and licensing and relevant business conduct provisions currently exist in the Act. The costs of developing, implementing and enforcement a mandatory code would outweigh any benefits, especially considering that many benefits discussed exist under the current Act. It is ultimately concluded that a mandatory code of conduct would potentially be just as administratively and financially onerous on industry participants as industry specific legislation. It was also considered that the low penalties associated with codes of conduct would potentially make a mandatory code of conduct less effective that the current regulation. There is a danger that the industry may perceive a mandatory code of conduct as being a form of industry regulation with lower penalties reducing its effectiveness. Conclusion The impacts of moving to the alternative state of a mandatory code of conduct are summarised in the table below. Stakeholder Consumer Description Potential reduction in prices through increased competition and reduced compliance costs Potential for initial delay in compliance and enforcement while code and relevant policies and procedures are developed Costs of additional administrative burden for private investigators potentially passed to consumer Potential drop in standard of service Legal remedies under a Code may not be adequate to Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 77 Size Small Small Small Medium Medium Direction Positive Negative Negative Negative Negative National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 Industry Government Small Small to Medium Financial and administrative burden in developing code Large Financial and administrative burden in implementing code Medium Financial and administrative burden of administering code (as Negligible compared with current regulatory burden) Financial burden of training investigators and administrative Small to staff in the new regime medium Additional burden of enforcing conduct of private Small investigators Injunctions may not be easy to obtain without proof of Medium previous convictions, compromising Government's priority of a safer community Potentially lower penalties for non-compliance thereby Small to reducing effectiveness of regulation, compromising Medium Government's priorities ofa safer community maximise safety of public and property Code may not promote honest and reasonable behaviour in security providers Business conduct of security providers may be lifted over time Potentially lower penalties may in effect reduce effectiveness of regulation, thereby compromising safety of the public and property Potential delays in enforcement during development stage Reduction in fmancial burden of paying licensing fees Reduction in financial burden of paying training costs Private investigators may be required to adhere to code where common law and statute are may be sufficient Potential for an initial drop III public perception and reputation of industry Code may not promote same level of honest and reasonable behaviour Honest operators disadvantaged by low cost operators undercutting legitimate operators Lower wages and conditions due to increase in competition Administrative burden in ensuring compliance with additional requirements (as compared with current regime) Short to long term delays In Government developing processes to ensure compliance Business conduct would improve after initial implementation and transitional phase Code may introduce ethical and professional conduct requirements, lifting reputation of industry Potentially lower penalties for non-compliance Small Medium Small to Medium Small Small Small Medium Small Small Medium Medium Small Small Medium Negative Positive Negative Negative Positive Positive Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Positive Positive Positive Negative Negative Nil Negative Negative Negative Negative Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 78 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Acl 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 The introduction of a mandatory code of conduct model would produce a small to medium net cost to all stakeholders. The introduction of a mandatory code would not produce any benefit that is not already available through the Act. The costs to government of developing, implementing and enforcing a mandatory code of conduct would be significant. The perceived benefits of moving to a mandatory code of conduct model, to the industry and consumers would be minimal, if not negligible, when balanced with the overall costs and benefits of the current regulatory regime. A mandatory code of conduct is not considered to be a viable alternative. 15.2 Voluntary Code of Conduct ., Consideration was given to a voluntary code of conduct as an alternative to the existing legislation. A voluntary code of conduct could be completely voluntary, quasi-regulatory or co-regulatory. A complete voluntary code of conduct model would be developed by an industry association, the members of which agree to abide by the code of conduct. Under a quasi-regulatory model, the code of conduct may be developed by industry in cooperation with government and development may be initiated either by government or the industry. A co-regulatory code may be developed by industry, but would involve a third party to administer and/or monitor the code of conduct for compliance and may contain some level of penalty for non-compliance. Under a voluntary code of conduct, no legislative backing would be given to the code of conduct, which would be administrated by an industry association. A voluntary code of conduct could be developed in the same manner as a mandatory code of conduct, as discussed in section 13.1 and could also include mechanisms to review and amend the code of conduct. The key difference between a mandatory and a voluntary code of conduct is that a voluntary model would have no legislative backing and would not attract legislative penalties for non-compliance. However, there may be other penalties for non-compliance with the code, such as suspension or cancellation of membership with the industry association, which may be used as a way of preventing a security provider from operating within the industry. Voluntary codes of conduct operate effectively when it is developed with an industry that agrees to abide by the code of conduct. Given that the security industry does not have a peak industry association that represents all security providers, it may be difficult to detennine who should develop and administer a voluntary code of conduct. Stakeholders responded to a code of conduct in general tenns, rather than a voluntary or mandatory model. Stakeholders were generally opposed to a code of conduct, as discussed in Section 13.1. Comments were also made that stopping those who abuse the system would be time consuming and expensive and self would lack the teeth that regulation currently provides. It is considered that a voluntary code of conduct would not meet the objectives of the Act, particularly Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 79 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act /993 and the Security Pmviders Regulation /995 as a voluntary industry-driven code of conduct may not ensure that the public is protected from unacceptable behaviour of security providers. The public would not be reassured that security providers possess a basic level of competency in delivery of services to members of the public. The Government would not be aware of the identity of persons operating in the industry and as such would not be sure that it meets its priority of providing a safer community to Queenslanders. It is ultimately concluded that the voluntary code of conduct model could potentially have the same or less administrative and financial costs on an industry association and on its participants as industry specific legislation. Penalties would be less severe and there are usually no licensing arrangements thereby reducing the costs of administration. The fragmented nature of the security services industry and the absence of a peak industry body or bodies to administer the code make establishment of a voluntary code impractical. It was also considered that the lack of penalties associated with a voluntary model would make a voluntary code of conduct less effective than the current regulation. The public would not be reassured that all security providers have attained a basic level of competency in providing security services under a voluntary code of conduct model. There is a danger that the industry will perceive a voluntary code of conduct as being a lesser form of regulation with no legislative penalties reducing its effectiveness. Conclusion The impacts of moving to the alternative state of a voluntary code of conduct are summarised in the table below. Staj{eholder Consumer Description Potential for initial delay and disruption III industry compliance while code is developed Potential drop in standard of service Legal remedies under a Code may not be adequate to maximise safety of public and property Code may not promote honest and reasonable behaviour in security providers Injunctions may not be available under a voluntary code of conduct. Business conduct of security providers may be lifted over time Absence of penalties may reduce effectiveness of model, thereby compromising safety ofthe public and property Financial and administrative costs III development and implementation Potential delays in enforcement during development stage Reduction in financial burden of paying licensing fees Reduction in fmancial burden of paying training costs Potential for an initial drop in public perception and reputation of industry Code may not promote same level of honest and reasonable behaviour Public Benefit Test Report- Appendix A Page 80 Size Medium Medium Medium Small Medium Medium Small to Medium Large Small Small Small Small Small Direction Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Positive Negative Negative Negative Positive Positive Negative Negative Industry National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulatioll 1995 Honest operators disadvantaged by low cost operators undercutting legitimate operators Lower wages and conditions due to increase in competition Administrative burden in complying with additional conduct requirements (as compared with current regime) Short to long term delays in development of processes to ensure compliance Business conduct would improve after initial implementation and transitional phase Code may introduce ethical and professional conduct requirements, lifting reputation of industry Potentially lower penalties for non-compliance Government Medium Medium Small Small Medium Small Small to Medium Medium Medium Negative Negative Negative Negative Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Reduction in administrative licensing burden Reduction in compliance costs Injunctions may not be easy to obtain without proof of previous convictions, compromising Government's priority of Medium a safer community Lower penalties for non-compliance thereby reducing effectiveness of regulation, compromising Government's Small to Medium priorities of a safer community Negative Negative The introduction of a voluntary code of conduct model would produce a medium net cost to all stakeholders. The introduction of a voluntary code would not produce any addition benefit that is not already available through the Act. The costs to industry of developing, implementing and administering a voluntary code of conduct would be significant and it is envisaged that there would be delays in the implementation phase that may cause confusion in the industry and the public. The perceived benefits of moving to a voluntary code of conduct model, to the industry and consumers would be minimal, if not negligible, when balanced with the overall costs and benefits of the current regulatory regime. A voluntary code of conduct is not considered to be a viable alternative. 15.3 Negative Licensing Consideration was given to introducing a negative licensing system as an alternative to the current regulation. Under negative licensing, current barriers to entry into the marketplace would be removed. Persons would not be required to apply to the Office afFair Trading for permission to operate in the industry. Any person would be allowed to provide security services unless they are placed on a publicly accessible register maintained by the Chief Executive, which would indicate their unsuitability to Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 81 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act J993 and the Security Providers Regulatioll J995 operate in the industry. It is envisaged that criteria would be developed on which to base decisions to exclude persons from the industry and place them on the negative licensing register. In this way, the Chief Executive would have the power to exclude persons with very poor operating records or criminal histories from the security industry. The criteria could include instances where there are serious breaches of legislation, where an individual has a serious criminal history or where a person conducted him/herself inappropriately, as defined. An offence would be created for any person listed on the negative licensing register found operating as a security provider. Most stakeholders submitted that a negative licensing scheme would provide little benefit to the community, would create additional costs to Government and industry and would reduce the consumer protection currently attainable. The general feedback from stakeholders was that a negative licensing system would not meet the objectives of the Act. The rationale behind stakeholder responses was for varying reasons. Unsuitable persons would be able to enter the industry, making it more difficult, time consuming and expensive to remove inappropriate members of the industry. Stakeholders believe that a lessening of the present standard would denigrate the good work already achieved in lifting the profile of the industry and that the best method is invariably not the cheapest and that a price cannot be placed on the safety of the community. The Queensland Police Service does not consider a negative licensing scheme to be a viable option for monitoring and regulating the industry, and that an integrated licensing regime is essential to ensure inappropriate persons do not infiltrate the industry. There is a danger that persons with intention of engaging in criminal or inappropriate behaviour under the guise of providing security functions would enter the industry. Stakeholders submit that the community expects a regulated, safe environment, rather than the prosecution of offenders, notification of which largely goes unnoticed. There would be damage to the public safety before offenders were identified, which would not adequately fulfil the objectives of the Act. Stakeholders commented that a reactionary approach will not appease the disgruntled public and those who seek to circumvent the criterion and their responsibilities will prevail in the industry. The community would need to check the public register to find out whether or not the security provider they are considering doing business with has been removed. It is assumed that there would be a small fee to the access the Register, which would add costs to the community. Even when a member of the public docs access the Register, there is no guarantee that the person will be appropriate by virtue of the fact that he/she does not appear on the register. Inappropriate industry members would need to be identified before they could be registered on the negative licensing system. There would be additional cost to clients of security provider firms, including hotels, nightclubs, owners of premises and the general public, who would need to check the history of those they wish to employ. Under the current licensing system, they only need to rely on production of a license to draw the assumption that the person is appropriate and adequately trained to perform the requisite duties. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 82 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Sec/wily Providers Regulation 1995 The Queensland Police Service submits that the public safety needs outweigh the need for extended competition within the industry and that self-regulation will not be effective in ensuring the objectives of the Act are achieved. There will be a cost to the community as a result of inappropriate behaviour or offences committed by unscrupulous persons who enter the industry with criminal intent. This cost is in terms of the increase in significant risks associated with inappropriate persons entering the industry and performing the functions entrusted to a security provider, which may result in financial or physical detriment to the public. A few stakeholders believe that the industry is already rife with inappropriate operators, especially at the management level and that negative licensing would make this scenario worse in that firms would revel in the fact that they can operate with little constraints. With very little or no accountability, there would be damage to the reputation of the industry before offenders were identified and prohibited from operating. Some stakeholders submit that backyard operators without appropriate insurance would be encouraged as they would not be required to operate from legitimate premises and the Chief Executive would have no way of knowing where security providers were operating from. One Government stakeholder submits that it has had experiences where commercial imperatives without regulation have resulted in lowering the standard of the industry below community expectations. The Queensland Police Service submits that security firms may not have the ability to ensure that only persons of acceptable character and background are employed nor the ability to ensure appropriate levels of competency, skills and accredited training arc provided to persons performing the functions of a security provider. Other stakeholders also submit that persons wanting to employ security providers may not ordinarily look at the person's history, but rely on licensing to ensure persons are appropriate and suitable. Stakeholders submit that there would be a benefit to inappropriate industry members only who could circumvent the system and operate inappropriately at a low cost for quite some time before being identified as inappropriate and excluded from the industry. There were comments from some stakeholders that the industry would be quickly controlled by organised crime as a guise for underground criminal activity, especially in the nightclub scene where public safety would not be the number one priority in lieu of other criminal activities. Clients or firms wanting to employ security providers may not look at the history of those they wish to employ and rely on checking for a current license, which indicates they are appropriate and suitable to operate within the industry. Operators could offer low cost services by employing unskilled persons at lower wages to operate as security providers, which could force legitimate operators either out of business, or to lower their prices in order to compete. The standard of the industry would drop as there would be little incentive to operate efficiently when persons offering a lower standard of service with lower costs were also obtaining contracts from clients and forcing wages down for professional operators. There would be costs savings to industry members of the licensing fees payable to the Office of Fair Trading and the fee payable to attend and complete appropriate training courses. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 83 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act J993 and the Security Providers Regulation J995 Stakeholders recognised that the cost to Government of continual policing the activities of aU industry members and ensuring that recognised inappropriate persons did not operate as security providers would be horrendous. There would be no revenue from licensing to offset the costs of a large proactive compliance program. It has been suggested during consultation that a negative licensing scheme would require strict pro-active Government activity to effectively monitor the industry. Many stakeholders consider that it will be difficult to ascertain who is participating in the market and the Office of Fair Trading may not be sufficiently resourced to investigate all operators. They submit that efficient compliance would require large spot check programs to ensure that the industry was not operating outside the set criterion, to ensure removal where necessary. Given that the Government will not have a register of operators it is possible that criminal activity would infiltrate the industry if it were known that Government is unaware of the history and experience of the individuals operating. The Office of Fair Trading receives many complaints every year in relation to security providers, indicating that ongoing regulation is required. A negative licensing system would not achieve the objectives of the Act of ensuring public safety and conduct in accordance with community expectations. There will be a benefit to Government through the reduced administrative burden of licensing security providers. The Government will still be required, under a negative licensing scheme, to incur the costs of monitoring the industry and removing inappropriate persons when required, which would not be offset by the revenue received under the current positive licensing system. Conclusion The impacts of moving to the alternative state of a negative licensing scheme are summarised in the table below. Stakeholder Consumer Industry Description _. Potential drop in standard of service Legal remedies under may not be adequate to maximise safety of public and property May not promote honest and reasonable behaviour in security providers Injunctions may not be easy to obtain without proof of previous convictions Business conduct of security providers would be lifted Lower or no penalties may reduce effectiveness of regulation, thereby compromising safety of the public and property Reduction in financial burden of paying licensing fees Reduction in financial burden of paying training costs Potential for an initial drop in public perception and reputation of industry Will not promote same level of honest and reasonable Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 84 S~e Medium Medium Small Medium Medium Small to Medium Small Small Small Small . Direction Negative Negative Negative Negative Positive Negative Positive Positive Negative Negative National Competition Poliey Review of the Sf!cUI"ily Providel:v Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulatioll 1995 Government behaviour Honest operators disadvantaged by low cost operators Medium undercutting legitimate operators Lower wages and conditions due to increase in competition Small Lower penalties for non-compliance Small to Medium Reduction in administrative licensing burden Medium Reduction in compliance costs Medium Injunctions may not be easy to obtain without proof of previous convictions, compromising Government's priority of a safer community Medium Lower penalties for non-compliance thereby reducing effectiveness of regulation, compromising Government's Small to priorities of a safer community Medium Negative Negative Positive Positive Positive Negative Negative The introduction of a negative licensing system would produce a small to medium net cost to all stakeholders. The introduction of a negative licensing system would not produce any addition benefit that is not already available through the Act. The costs to industry of developing, implementing and administering a negative licensing system would be significant and it is envisaged that delays would occur that might cause confusion in the industry and the public. The benefit of moving to a negative licensing system is to industry in relation to a decrease in training and licensing fees and to government in relation to a decrease in administrative and financial costs. There would be a cost to consumers in that the public safety would be compromised and the government would only act after an incident had occurred. The negative licensing model is not considered to be a viable alternative. 15.4 Deregulation An alternative to the current regulatory regime would be to deregulate the operations of security officers by repealing the Act. Under deregulation, no industry specific legislation would exist and market forces would determine who enters the market and remains there as a competitive industry operator over time. There would be no conduct requirements and consumers would need to rely on the particular hotel, venue or security firm to ensure they were aware of which security providers were working at any given time for identification purposes, should an incident occur. Consumer protection would be reduced, as consumers would not know with whom they were dealing, would not be reassured that security providers are in fact appropriate to fulfil that community function and may not be able to locate the person in event that an incident occurs. The market would need to Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 85 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulatiol/ 1995 rely on competitive forces to regulate behaviour. Good operators would make information available to customers in a competitive market. Unscrupulous operators would not be prevented from entering the industry and the safety of the public and property would be reduced to relying on industry participants cooperating voluntarily with current criminal and civil law and with enforcement agencies. Law enforcement would become reactive and only where an offence exists under other legislation. Deregulation would decrease the cost of monitoring the industry for compliance with the Act and subsequent cost of taking enforcement action when necessary. There would be very little or no obligation to monitor compliance under deregulation. All stakeholders opposed deregulation. Stakeholders submit that the cost of deregulation would include allowing unsuitable persons to enter the industry; removal of such persons would become extremely difficult. A lessening of the current standard would denigrate good work already achieved in lifting the reputation of the industry. Stakeholders acknowledged that the best way is not always the cheapest but a price cannot be put on the safety of the community. Stakeholders commented that the objectives of the Act would not be met if a deregulation model were introduced. Most stakeholders recognise that public safety and the standard of service to clients would be compromised dramatically if the industry were deregulated. The number of assaults and complaints in relation to security provider related behaviour would increase. The Queensland Police Service submit that deregulation is not effective in ensuring that all operators maintained the basic level of skills in their delivery of security provider services to the public. This may have the effect of increasing criticism and decreasing public confidence in the ability of security providers to provide the level of service expected by the community. The Queensland Hotels Association submits that if the industry were deregulated there is potential for increased legal and public liability issues for hotels in the area of negligence for injuries suffered by patrons from either unruly fellow patrons or the crowd controllers themselves. Additionally, without regulation both the hotel and security industry would insure for the same risk, hanning the Queensland economy as a whole. The Queensland Police Service submitted that deregulation will not provide an effective monitoring system to overview the conduct of security providers in Queensland and would fail to ensure that only persons of appropriate character operate as security providers. Stakeholders acknowledged that a deregulation model would allow more players into the industry and with more players firms will reduce their overheads by lowering wages and cutting comers on contracts. The Queensland Police Service submitted that the public safety needs, addressed partially through an integrated licensing system, outweigh the need for extended competition within the security provider industry. Stakeholders further submit that there would be an increase in unethical practices and in incompetent firms that would contribute toward driving wages and conditions down for officers. Several stakeholders raised the issue of the security provider providing a good 'cover' for criminal Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 86 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 activity and that there would be an increase in inappropriate persons who claim to be security providers who would have an enhanced opportunity to carry out criminal activities. There would be a cost to Queensland Police Service that would need to be borne to ensure that criminal activities were identified and addressed. The benefits of deregulation would include the reduction in costs to business associated with administrative costs of existing record keeping and identification requirements. Deregulation would also remove barriers to entry into the industry by removing the requirement to hold a licence that would enable anybody to operate within the industry with no barriers. It is likely that there would be an increase in competition for all operators if the industry were deregulated. Stakeholders submit that the criminal fraternity and unscrupulous security providers would benefit in that they would be allowed to enter the industry without proving competency or appropriateness. There will be costs savings for industry in that they will not have to pay for training costs or licensing fees to operating in the industry. The Office of Fair Trading continues to receive complaints in relation to security providers, which is indicative of the need for government to continue regulation of the security industry. The public demands a safe environment and expects that only appropriate persons will act in a position of authority or power, such as security providers. Deregulation of the industry would result in a reduction in the safety of the public and property and will create the potential for the criminal element to infiltrate the security industry with no barrier to entry. Conclusion The impacts of moving to the alternative state of deregulation are summarised in the table below. Stakcholdcr Consumer Description Potential reduction in price through increased competition and reduced compliance costs Potential drop in standard of service Legal remedies may not be adequate to maximise safety of public and property Safety of the public would be reduced Safety of property would be reduced Deregulation may not promote honest and reasonable behaviour in security providers Injunctions may not be easy to obtain without proof of previous convictions Consumers may not be able to locate responsible persons Size Small Medium Medium Large Medium Small Medium . J~ire~tion Positive Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Small to Negative Medium Small Small Medium Small Positive Positive Negative Negative Industry Reduction in financial burden of paying licensing fees Reduction in financial burden of paying training costs Drop in public perception and reputation of industry Drop in the level of ethical, honest and reasonable behaviour Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 87 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Acl1993 and the Security Providers RegulatiOIl 1995 Honest operators disadvantaged by low cost operators Mediwn undercutting legitimate operators Medium Lower wages and conditions due to increase in competition Low or no penalties for non-compliance Small to Medium Increase in competition within the market Small to Medium Market would be open for everyone to operate within the Small to Medium industry Government Reduction in administrative licensing burden Reduction in compliance costs Increased cost to the Queensland Police in enforcing the Criminal Code to ensure criminal activities are identified and addressed Injunctions may not be easy to obtain without proof of previous convictions, compromising Government's priority of a safer community No penalties for non-compliance thereby reducing effectiveness of regulation, compromising Government's priorities of a safer community Objectives of Act would not be met Medium Medium Negative Negative Positive Positive Negative Positive Positive Medium Negative Medium Medium Medium Negative Negative Negative Deregulation would produce a medium to large cost to all stakeholders. Deregulation would not produce any benefit that cannot be attained through the Act and would in fact produce a medium to large cost. The costs to consumers would be large, given that the level of consumer protection, both of persons and property would potentially drop substantially. The cost to industry would be felt largely in the drop of legitimate security providers and therefore of the reputation of the industry. The persons who would benefit from a deregulated state are those who cannot currently enter the market due to inappropriateness or incompetence in that the barriers to entry into the market would be lifted and this group could freely enter the market. This would be to the detriment not only of consumers, but also government who would need to increase its policing of the security industry to ensure that any criminal activity was identified and that enforcement action taken where appropriate. The Queensland Government's priority of a safer community would also not be met. Deregulation is not considered to be a viable alternative. 16 Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 88 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 In summary it is concluded that: • • • • • • the current age restriction is justified in the public interest and should be retained. the criteria for determining whether applicants are 'appropriate persons' to holder a licence are appropriate and should be retained. the criminal history disclosure requirements under the Act should remain unchanged; the requirement that testimonials be provided should be retained; the fees charged in Queensland are not considered excessive and do not represent a restriction on entry into the industry or impact significantly on competition. the current offences and penalties for operating or employing a person to operate whilst unlicensed are an adequate deterrent to persons carrying out the functions of a security provider without a licence. the Chief Executive's discretion to issue licences subject to conditions should be retained. the benefits, to the community as a whole, of licensing private investigators outweigh the costs to stakeholders and should be retained. the exemptions for employees, legal practitioner, accountants (and their employees) should be retained. the exemptions for insurance agents, loss adjusters and their respective employees be retained at this stage. the licensing of crowd controllers (including bodyguards) remains relevant today, enhances the objectives of the Act and produces a net benefit for all stakeholders and should be retained; the current training requirements under the Act for crowd controllers and security guards produce a net benefit to all stakeholders and remain appropriate. The training requirements should remain unchanged; there is negligible benefit for industry, consumers or Government in splitting the definition of crowd controller into two categories of crowd controller and bodyguard and it is recommended that the current definition of crowd controller be retained; there is negligible benefit for industry, consumers or Government in splitting the definition of crowd controller into two categories of crowd controller and bodyguard and it is recommended that the current definition of crowd controller be retained volunteers are not captured by the current definition of crowd controller and it is not recommended that volunteers be included as security providers in any capacity; the use of the word 'principally' in the definition of a crowd controller has continued to cause potential problems in the industry, which may compromise the objectives of the Act by allowing persons to avoid proper training at the potential detriment of the public; the security officer licensing requirements be retained; exemptions relating to security officer licences remain unchanged at this time; the benefits of requiring firms to hold a licence outweigh the costs to stakeholders overall and this requirement should be retained; the grounds for cancellation, suspension or refusal to renew arc appropriate and should remain unchanged the benefits of requiring crowd controllers to wear identification to all stakeholders outweigh the minimal costs to industry and should be retained; Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 89 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 • • • • • the benefits of maintaining both crowd controller and finn registers, where appropriate outweigh the costs to all stakeholders and should be retained; a mandatory code of conduct would produce a small to medium net cost to all stakeholders. A mandatory code of conduct is not considered to be a viable alternative; a voluntary code of conduct would produce a medium net cost to all stakeholders. A voluntary code of conduct is not considered to be a viable alternative; a negative licensing system would produce a small to medium net cost to all stakeholders. The negative licensing model is not considered to be a viable alternative; and deregulation would produce a medium to large net cost to all stakeholders. Deregulation is not considered to be a viable alternative. It is recommended that the Office of Fair Trading: • assess the current disqualifying offences with a view to determining whether the current offences remain relevant and whether any other offences should be recognised as a disqualifying offence; investigate the legislative and stakeholder impacts of requiring applicants to disclose criminal history of offences committed within the last five years irrespective of whether a conviction was recorded. give further consideration to requiring private investigators to complete competency based training in the National Training Package for Asset Security - Security and Investigative Services (PRS98) as the minimum training standard; conduct inquiries into the costs and benefits of removing the exemption for insurance agents; in consultation with the loss adjuster industry examine the impacts on the community and stakeholders of including a definition of a loss adjuster in the Act that includes members of the Institute only where loss adjusters who were not members of the Institute would be required to comply with the Act. The assessment should canvass the Institute's requirements for membership to ensure that its requirements are at least equivalent to the Act; consider the recommendations made during the national review of the National Training Package for Asset Security - Security and Investigative Services (PRS98); consider the definition of crowd controller, particularly use of the word 'principally'. If it is determined that the word 'principally' be removed from the definition, further consideration should be given to clarifying the words 'maintaining order' with potential exemptions where necessary; consider the issues, costs and benefits of expanding the definition of security officer to include any or all of the following: • alann installers and repairers; • locksmiths; • security consultants; • security trainers; and • control room and CCTV monitoring staff and other similar staff; consider licensing' cash-in-transit' officers as part of a further investigation; investigate its current practice of conducting criminal history checks on 10% of renewal applications only to determine the costs and benefits of increasing the percentage of applicants Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 90 • • • • • • • • • National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act J993 and the Security Providers Regulation J995 • subjected to criminal history checks on licence renewal; and analyse the use of 'reward' in relation to security providers to determine whether or not this is a real issue in the market and if so, whether there is a more appropriate word to be used, such as 'remuneration'. 16.1 Other issues Raised 16. ~.1 Definition and Scope of Act Some stakeholders did not believe the current definition was appropriate so far as it does not include organisations which provide services such as locksmiths, alarm installers and repairers, security consultants, security trainers, control room and close circuit television (or 'CCrV') monitoring staff and other like functions. Requiring these persons to hold licences will ensure they are subject to appropriate person tests and accountability mechanisms similar to other security providers. The rationale for requiring persons to be licensed is that it will ensure these persons who often work in highly trusted and confidential environments are properly vetted. This would reduce incidents previously experienced in Queensland such as alarm installers, after installing an alarm at particular premises later returning and stealing property using the knowledge gained from installing the alarm. The issue of requiring further occupations to be licensed is outside the scope of this review. However, given the relevance of the issue raised, it has been recommended that the Office of Fair Trading should consider expanding the scope of definitions contained in the Act to include appropriate security services that currently fall outside the scope of the Act. ll6.1.2 .L\dditional Stakeholder Comments Liquor Licensing has raised the issue of access to licensed security providers and required training in remote areas, given the high incidence of people with disqualifying offences. This issue is outside the scope of this Review and will be considered further by the Office of Fair Trading when it conducts a further investigation of the Act. The Security Industry Regulatory Council (SIRC) represents the four main security industry associations in Queensland and has provided submissions as a key stakeholder throughout this review process. In addition to the issues raised within the scope of this review, it has raised issues that may require consideration by the Office of Fair Trading. These issues include: ).Merging the manpower and property protection definition into crowd controller and security officer so one security officer licence only is issued. SIRC submit that in many cases it is impossible to define the line between when a security officer is maintaining order (crowd controller) and when it protects property (security officer). As an example, SIRC submit that a security officer protecting property can be called upon to maintain order for example if patrolling around shopping centres where there may be an incident which requires the officer to maintain order, performing a manpower or crowd control function. And visa versa, crowd controllers could be called to maintain order in a carpark or around premises which may involve Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 91 National Competition Policy Review of the Security PI'Ol'iders Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation J995 );- » » ~ some level of property protection. Bodyguards should also be classed as security officers. There is no definition of bodyguard in the Act and SIRC believes that the initial purpose of including bodyguards within the definition of crowd controllers was based on the 1990 trend for bodyguards to be used to protect entertainment and sports personalities from being mobbed by crowds. Since that time bodyguards have developed and their clients include persons that may be under threat of physical hann. In relation to crowd controllers, in an effort to minimise continued assaults occurring in licensed premises, SIRC submit there should be: ~ A scale of crowd controllers to patrons; y A scale of patrons allowed into a venue which considers requirements under the Liquor Act 1992, common law duty of care, workplace health and safety laws, building regulations and also considers the type of venue and entertainment; » Continuous colour CCTV monitoring of all entry and exit paths to and from the heart of the venue; and » Removal of the words 'principally' and 'for reward' from the definition of crowd controller. SIRC strongly recommend that Queensland do not adopt a model that requires self-regulation through associations. It submits that the current New South Wales model that requires compulsory membership with an industry association is not working. SIRC are happy with the industry being governed by an independent agency such as the Office of Fair Trading or the Queensland Police Service but not by its competitors stating that commercial confidentiality must be a supreme objective of any regulating legislation. It submits that the association audit process adopted in New South Wales does not address service and produce delivery and that the Act, when recommendations from this NCP review are endorsed will be a good basis for regulation of the Queensland security industry. SIRC believe that an authority or tribunal system should be used to deal with show cause actions to save costs and time in going before a magistrates court in the first instance. Such a tribunal could also hear matters to establish if the issue should be taken through the court system. The Australian Security Industry Association (ASIAL) is the nationwide Association representing the security industry which has around 3,000 companies as members, 150 of which are based in Queensland. ASIAL has provided submissions as a key stakeholder throughout this review process. In addition to this issues ASIAL raised that are within the scope if this review, it has raised some issues that may require or warrant further consideration by the Office of Fair Trading. ASIAL believes that: » There is market failure but inadequate means to capture the details or satisfactory access for conswners; ;.. The scope of the regime, currently only manpower, compromises community welfare and level playing field principles because of the occupations that are ignored; );More can be done to enhance and achieve the objectives than have been established; ~ Minimum competencies and appropriate person tests are useful but insufficient in themselves; ';.> A national database can be a reality for criminal checks; ';.> Proactive compliance checking, not passive monitoring should be a feature of any regime; >- Mutual recognition is not working adequately and portability is non-existence. Public Benefit Test Report- Appendix A Page 92 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regula/ion 1995 Based on the above, ASIAL has raised the following issues: Y Mandatory membership of an approved industry association and establishment of a genuine coregulatory approach that identifies and controls unsavoury clements of the security industry will supplement legislative instruments that underpin a workable regime; Y A co-regulatory approach is predicated upon: );- Improved consumer outcomes (such as SecureGold, an ASlAL wan-anty and guarantee service); Y Higher standards of service delivery (such as evolving codes like the ASIAL Code of Practice for the Marketing of Home Security Systems); ).- Better Training and Development of industry practitioners with certification and endorsement initiatives (such as the RTO Seal of Excellence program); ).- Safety and Reliability (protocols like the National Emergency Response Protocol); and y Trust and confidence through independent field compliance inspectors to a rigorous assessment regime. Stakeholders raised many additional issues that were unable to be assessed during the course of this review. The issues raised in addition to those that appear in tis section have been noted at the bottom of the consultation table at Appendix B. These additional comments and issues within this section will be considered by the Office of Fair Trading when it conducts a further investigation of the Act. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 93 National Competition Policy Review of the Security p,.oviders Act 1993 and the Security Pro~'iders Regulatioll 1995 APPEN Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix: A Page 94 National Competition Policy Review ofthe Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulatioll 1995 APPENDIX A Terms of Reference for the Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and Security Providers Regulations 1995 I. In accordance with the State's obligations relating to the implementation of National Competition Policy, this review will examine the case for continued regulation of the security provider industry in Queensland. The guiding principle is that legislation should not restrict competitIOn unless it can be demonstrated that the benefits of the restriction to the community as a whole outweigh the costs and that the objectives of the legislation can only be achieved by restricting competition. 2. Without limiting the scope of the review, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) will: i. Clarify the objectives of the legislation; ii. Identify the nature of restrictions on competition; Ill. Analyse the likely effects of the restrictions on competition and on the economy generally; IV. Assess and balance the costs and benefits of the restrictions identified by conducting a Public Benefit Test; and v. Consider other means for achieving the same results including alternative legislative or non-legislative approaches. The review should give consideration to Clause I(3) of the Competition Principles Agreement, which is reproduced below. 3. Without limiting the matters which may be taken into account, where this Agreement calls: (a) For the benefits of a particular policy or course ofaction to be balanced against the casts ofthe policy or course ofaction; or (b) For the merits or appropriateness ofa particular policy or course ofaction to be determined; or (c) For an assessment ofthe most effective means ofachieving a policy objective; the following matters shall, where relevant, be taken into account: (a) (b) (c) (g) Government legislation and policies relating to ecologically sustainable development; Social welfare and equity considerations, including community service obligations; Government legislation and policies relating to matters such as occupational health and safety, industrial relations and access and equity; Economic and regional development, including employment and investment growth; Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page I National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Ac/ J993 and the Security Providers Regula/ion J995 (h) (i) OJ The interests ofconsumers generally or ofa class ofconsumers; The competitiveness ofAustralian businesses; and The e.fficient allocation ofresources. When examining the matters identified under clause I(3), the review will give consideration to explicitly identifying the likely impact of reform measures on specific industry sectors and communities, including expected costs in adjusting to change. 4. During the course of the review, the review team will consider: • alternative options for the application of consumer protection considerations in the security provider industry (in particular, whether the level of regulation is appropriate); • regulatory arrangements in other jurisdictions; and • current Queensland Government Legislative Review Guidelines. The review team shall consult with and seek submissions from participants in the security providers industry and other interested parties. To assist in the consultation process, review team will develop and publish an issues paper focussing on restrictions contained in the legislation and alternative options. On completion of the review, review team will submit a report on the outcome of the review to Minister for Fair Trading, and a Competition Impact Statement to Cabinet for its consideration if applicable. It is proposed that the PBT report will be made publicly available once the review process is finalised. Legislation to be reviewed It is proposed to review the Security Providers Act 1993 (the 'SP Act') and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 (the 'Regulation'). 5. 6. 7. The 'SP Act' was developed to provide a comprehensive legislative code for the regulation of security providers in Queensland and regulates the following occupations, which fall within the definition of a "Security Provider": • Private Investigators; • Crowd Controllers; • Security Officers; and • Security Firms. The SP Act principally creates a licensing regime for each of these occupational categories. The licensing regime includes mandatory training requirements for private investigators, crowd controllers and security officers. The Act and Regulation also includes minor conduct requirements on crowd controllers and security firms. The impetus for the SP Act's development was increased public concern over a number of reported incidents involving assaults by crowd controllers (colloquially 'bouncers') on patrons oflicensed premises in the early 1990's. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 2 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act J993 and the Security Providers Regulatioll 1995 The objective of the legislation is to: • Ensure that only persons of an 'acceptable character' entcr and operate as security providers; • Ensure that operators possess basic levels of competency in the delivery of their services to members of the public; and • Ensure that industry/market participants behave according to community expectations. 8. Review Arrangements It is proposed that a targeted public review will be conducted by a review team from the Legislative Review Unit of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) with the aid of a reference group. It is proposed that the reference group will include representatives from the following departments: • the licensing and investigations branches within OFT; • Queensland Police; • Department of Employment and Training; • Department of Justice and Attorney-General; and • Department of State Development. A social impact assessment and an employment impact statement will be prepared and the Government's Priority Outcomes for Queensland will be considered as an integral part of the revIew process. 9. Timing of Review It is anticipated that timelines for the review process will be as follows: Review to commence Public Notification of the Review Consultation period Draft Public Benefit Test Report which incorporates consultation prepared Public Benefit Test Report to be presented to the Minister September 2001 November/December 200 I December 2001 JanuarylFebruary 2002 March 2002 Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix A Page 3 National Competition Policy Review ofthe Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 APPENDIX B Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1998 Consultation Results from Issues Paper - January 2002 Issue Are objeetl>'es of SPA relennt? Are objecti>,es being met? .\ re there any alternaU>'e objectives? (OP!) Group Industry Costs/Suggested change Those who choose to actively endorse aims of Act are meeting objects. Benefits/Status Quo Objectives are sound and slill very relevant. Rcla~ing control would in>'ite unsuitable elements to again infiltrate the induSlry - it has taken many year.; and is ongoing, to improve the standard and public perception of members of the induslry. Comments There are those who place expediency and fmancial considerations above all else who tend to ignore or divert from efforts to achieve aims for which the Act was designed. Certain groups within industry require closer scruliny to ensure compliance with the spirit of the Act. It has been discussed that security take over some police activities. releasing police assets. This is happening (neighbourhood policing. private monitoring stations. traffic control). Objectives not being met: some firms taken to court for behaviour bordering on criminal (fail to fulfil conlrncts, chargIng for services not provided, underpayment of wages). Suggeslion: Act needs to be broader in .acceptable character' - basic level of lrnining is incorrect operators should have clear understanding of duties and responsibilities under all relevant AclS. More relevant today. Industry has expanded due to increased crime. cost of maintaining police force and type of security undertaken. Objections not being met: situation has been advanced since inlroduclion 0 fAct. Suggestion: include consultants, loss prevention oflieers, sales and technical sectors Rationale: they have opportunity to e~p(oit for illegal intent and been involved in crime against clients. Suggestion; Alarm installers, access control, cerv installers and service people, locksmiths, security door installers, security alarm monitoring Slations operators be captured Rationale: potential for criminal activity in this sector; access to more in formation such as personal security procedures; carry more responsibility for securitv/safetv of clients. public and property. Loopholes that allow persons to have a conviction but not their licence cancelled is hindering objective. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Pa~e 1 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act J993 and the Security Providers Regula/ion J995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Objectives are crucial and not being met. so/ce - level of expertise and skill lacking. Some Regislered Training Organisations (RTOs) do course over 2 weeks, but should be 6 weeks full time.'ll Courses do not cover codes of practice or ethics that cannot be covered in 2 weeks. PI courses teach basic skills and knowl~dge. but does nOI produce a peniOn with suitable skills to practice investigation work - can be damaging to lives. repulalions and credibility. Lack of skills/knowledge can result in unacceptable behaviour and ethics. More control over training providers will guarantee persons applying for licensing are equipped wilh correct knowledge. Only a few objectives have been met: sub-standard training and inadequate policing; Benefits/Status Quo Introduction of Certificate II is positive move to raised level of qualification, skills and knowledge. Objectives are relevanl, but not being met as a result of flaws in training processes as outlined (as costs). Comments PI course can be conducted in 1 week - to be a competent PI one requires eXlensive Car more training/experience. Objectives are relevant and control on indusLry has been effeclive. Objectives are being mel through training and criteria checks pre-licensing. Objectives are relevant - industry is ever expanding, SPs are expected to be on par with Police; competencies musl be maintained 10 ensure appropriate higher slandard of service. Objectives are basic and it is unlikely industry would be unable to cope with further objecllves ie. understanding principles of general business and business loss prevention. Low bids to get contracts rather that quality service. Responsible security managers support tougher industry regulation recenllv introduced Ie. SOs were allowed to use powers normally associaled wilh police during Goodwill Games/Olympic - it is likely this will be repealed in fUlure. Eg. Union wrote to OFT 7 months ago seeking cancellation of frrm licence, response was ibal OFT did not know when il could commence investigation and complaint remains unfinalised. Many firms do not pay workers in accordance with a,,;ard or certified agreement; industry amongst worst industry in terms of underpayments and other breaches of industrial law. Events like CHOGM, Olympics have required increased private security: electronic systems are competing with human patrolling. Overly competitive (cutthroat) attitude of SP has been allowed to exist Alleged deficiencies relate to reach and specific elements of legislation not to core principles or core reJ!ulatory stratellies. Significant slep forward In protecting consumers from unscrupulous SPs and protecling ethical praclitioners from unfair competition. Objectives are more important today than in the past more SO and PIs are undertaking roles traditionally police. It is imperative that legislation exists to ensure only appropriate persons enter industry; ltgislation eliminated a number of unacceptable people: basic levels of competency are essential; SOs in control of firearms, batons and dangerous dogs must be compelent \0 use weapons to ensure public safely; SOS placed in dangerous situalions and competency ensures they a"oid assault and injury to themselves. Removal would see substantial violent and criminally inclined people relum to industry; however, there remain many unacceptable persons operating within industry because legislation is not well "nCarced. Industry has changed, warranting regulallon of electronic security and physical security. Current level of regulation un~alisfaetory minimum - scope should be expanded 10 anlicipate change/future trends, to cover unregulated non-manpower areas. II J Nominated/approved house set oul by Queensland is contained on p2 of submission, indication approved hours for each component of Certificate II training. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 2 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Objectives are not being met thoroughly - industry needs Dolicim:. If lraining removed, increase in less educated persons doing work of complex nature and likelihood of injury; untrained SO has no support from training organisation; eorrcspondenc~ courses do not provide any suitable training for SO or PIs; too easy to become SO having a downward effect on income; average hourly rate as low as S12; nonRTO's deliver training in Cert IV have bastardised the quais between 199~-200 I; employers are being presented with Cert IV quais thaI do not meet national standard, having negative experiences with those employees. Benefits/Status Quo Objeclives are relevant for public safety. Objeclives are relevant - litigation is more prominent; part of prOlec tion for any employee is lIaining, warnmgs and supervision. SOs face legal action personalty from persons alfected by alcohol who suITer injury; some firms will not cover for SO or cease contrnct; headlines on nighlclub assaults are not always factual and SOs are often subject to trial by media. SOs prolecl more people than they assaull; a trained SO can learn options, techniques for handling intoxicated persons, incident reporting and legal action: Date rape drugs are big concern at Umversity functions and are t>~coming a feature of nightclubs; if not controlled through licensing and behavioural standards SP industry is exposed to greater mistrust; universities are attracting international students, legal consequence of any person falling victim to crime very serious; community expectation of SO should be maintained through the objectives. Comments Often innocent SO will be left without work as a result oca claim, even when motivated by revenge or is frivolous: no-win no-pay solicitors add to ease of this happ~ning; as a PI interviewing a lot of so over nightclub incidenlS from country pubs to city casinos, trained and licensed 50s are cooperative, professional and helpful· licensing k~~ps them that way - they are proud of lic~nc~ as it is a form of qualification. meeting an expected but unwritten standard. You can have a very old conviclion ( 15 years) and sull obtain a licence. As a result of Seplember 11 terrorist atlJlck, security should be increased, starting with lraining, to make industry more competitive: risk of management consequences reducing security training are now very senous. SO and CC should be separate totally from Pis - expectation of community is based on adverse or otherwise media attention given to disreputable SO or CC who appear to receive greatest atlention. Aware of two unacceptable individuals holding licence, not behaving appropriately or fulfilling requiremenlS. Prior to acceplJlnce of members. person must undertake high level broad ranging compet~ncy tesl, past criminal history and demonstrate caoacitv to mana!!.e business. To discuss ahernate objectives would be futile. we have not addressed issue of policing and mandatory compliance. Not much change apart from lraining; initial background inquiries but no follow up on renewal 10 confirm information is lrUe and correct. Objectives not being met in their entirety inappropriate persons operate in industry. Objeclives remain relevant today - PI expanding; must be level of competency or opinions of public. Govt and legal profession will decline. Strongly opposed 10 licensing of locksmith. NOTE: While member of SIRC, it disagrees with their submission on this point - association lakes pride in high ethical standards, skills and service levels. In some cases, objectives an: not being met extensive sectors of industry, have with access to sensitive information and an: not governed by Act or subject to scrutiny. Public perception not altered in respect 10 DOor imal!e industry subject 10. Consumer Objectives continue 10 be relevantloday. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 3 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act J993 and the Security Providers Regulation J995 Issue Group Government Costs/Suggested change Suggeslion: Audits should he conducted on trnining providers to ensure delivery in accordance with agreed competency standards Competency and character tests are primary means in SA of achieving consumer prolection objectives. Benefits/Status Quo Objectives are relevant, adequate, appropriate and consistent with WA legislation Comments There are some problems in WA with inconsistent Judicial deciSion, on appeal. SA objeclives are 10 proteci consumers from physical harm and financial loss at Ihe hands of security and investi~allons officers SGPSS is aware !hat some of its officers have been offered a Certificate of Competence by privale providers wi!hout examination. The rationale given was that slaff working in the industry should already know evelVlhin~ required Objectives do not always prevent unsuitable persons from wooong as 'bouncers'; some training providers interested in income, ra!her Ihan quality training. Objectives are relevant today. Objectives not being met: OFT does not have access to aU information on individuals !hat would assist determine suitability; enforcement is done on an ad hoc basis primarily in SE Qld or areas where OFT has a presence; training is regarded as a joke by many with little/no audit of training providers. Objectives are relevant in respect to community and industry expectation and desire to ensure only appropriate persons operate as SPs. Benefits: increased compliance throughout industry. reduction in complaints received by OFT; improved industrY profile - demonstrates obiectives bein~ met. Objectives are basically still relevant. but it is a grow!h industry with SOs used at events. for purposes not envisaged ie. family parties. SOCial activilies. performing duties once assigned 10 police elc. Objectives not being met to an acceptable standard - problem wi!h Inappropriate people being able to entcr and operate in industry: criminal interests infiltrate security industry and use lbe role of security provider as a method for !he commission of property and other related crimes. Objectives appropriate. particularly in view of reasons, which led to introduction of SPA. Objecllves generally wry relevant; essential lhat only persons of acceptable character enter and operate as security; it is necessary lbat security providers possess basic levels of compelency and skills for their profession to facilitate provisions of security services to the Queensland community in an effective and emcienl manner. Training requires urgent overhaul: persons are obtaining certificates without completing appropriate training; causes rise in litigation as a result of injuf) caused by inadequat~ training of SO wilh roll on effect throu~ industrY and Govt agencies, LL identifies possible impedimenls 10 objectives in other DPs. 2 I Appropriateness sorcilk definitions of Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 4 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act /993 and the Security Providers Regulation /995 Issue a. Private Investigator (DP2) Group Industry Costs/Suggested change Exempting insurance agents is leaving a loophole that could be susceptible to misuse. Benefits/Status Quo Comments Insurance investigations: no=ally to licensed subcontracted investigators, prevalent in this economic environment; agents do and will designate personnel to carry out inquiries who may not he trained for the purpose but ate not restrained by licence provisions; no fear of retribulion due to inappropriate action or behaviour; unlicensed insurance agents could be bias and company orientated assessments; In lhe combination of faclors may direct persons toward inappropriate aclion. Defmition appears to be ok. Suggestion: 'a person who for reward carries out an mvestigation to establish lhe faClS and/or obtain opinions about a maller, and reports eilher verbally, in wriling or hy other means to others'. Rationale: takes in persons investigaling mailers nOt directly related to a person. Inconsistency: Insurance assessors are not required to hold licence; persons aClmg 8S store delectives should be licensed: accountability. Licensing should reflect two areas that PRS98 recognises ie. factual and surveillance. Consider two defmitions - background work (database, public records) and cover enquiries (undercover work). Exemplioll5 may be abused giving licensed PIs a competitive disadvantage. Lawyers and accountants could remain exempt, but staff carrying out investigations should comply. Suggestion: lAss adjuslroent and insurance agents should comply. Ralionale: lhere is no appropriate person checks or traming. Suggestion: Lawyer's assistants should comply. Rationale: many junior clerks carry oul investigative functions. PIs contracted by insurance agents are reqUIred 10 hold PI license regardless of whether they carry out surveillance or factual assessments. However, assessors are not required to hold licence, but carry out a similar role defmition needs clarily. Investigators working for insurance companies should be subject 10 code of practice bul this is oflen not the case. Then: is a distinction between employees of retail stores who process credit applications and HR applications. Definition appropriate. Exemptions nOl appropriate: all persons who carry out investigations of any nalure Ihat involves details of another person must be accountable for this informalion. Defmition is appropriate. No exempt persons should be required to comply. Definition is appropriate. Information galhered musl be placed in a prescribed format and be exact and truthful. All persons described in ss6( I )-(2) should be licensed Suppon current definition as it applies 10 the general insurance IOdustry: insurance agents/employees and insurance adjuslment agellts/employees are subject to professional ethical duties and obligations as well as regulated by other legislation. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 5 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Licensing loss adjusters will not aid meeting the objectives but would add to opemtional expenses of Loss Adjusters. NB: Institule membership subscription is $385 annually (SP S~ll) Benefits/Status Quo Loss Adjuster exemption is appropriate, particularly as it relates to loss adjusters who are members of the Institute; Charter of Objecls and Professional Conduct binds members: industry is self-regulated through Charter.; industry is subject to ':lhical duties and obligations: rationale for elremption has nOI been ahered by time. Comments Rationale for eltemption was that these groups were already subject to professional ethical duties and obligations. Inslitute members are professional individuals, bound by an ethical code of conduct in the form of a Charter. Loss adjuster members do not have any competitive advantage by virtue of therr exclusion. Suggeslion: Definition should be extended to include all persons wor king for accountanls or legal firms whose primary function is 10 obtain or give information about another person. Ralionak Pis are employed by corporate sector to conduct complex in-house fraud investigations, covert in nalure. Police are subject to stringent legislation regarding deployment and activities, which does not aDDlv to PIs. Suggestion: Act should include licensing of all security including electronic (CCTV. alarm monitoring) Definition is not appropriate: PIs gather factual information about persons, places or things and provide confidential reports to request client. Definition should read ' A qualified person who for reward .... majority of persons who approach this firm for employment have received training and an: qualified to obtain licence; many have lengthy industry experience. are ex-police or have extended theorelical education; need to recognise PI industry as professional Consumer Loss adjusters should not be exempt: they perform same tasks obtaining information about another for reward; after loss adjuster has attended file and believes there is suspicion, file is passed to PI who asks same questions previously asked by loss adjuslers; may cause animosity in insured toward PI and/or insurance company, more· so when claim is genuine, hence complains made against PI and not loss adjuster. Definition and exemDtions are aDDrODrGlle. Compliance. audits and monitoring are needed 10 ensure high standards of probity, occupational competency and workolace conditions. Legal practitioners who want to do work of PI as source of income should be licensed; its no secret that taxation and land dealing ethics of legal practitioners are oft.:n questionable; if they want to undertake investigations they should be licensed: if lawyer is successful, why do inveSligations where professional law fmns outsource to investigation firms. Loss adjusters and all office administrators working for investigation flrms should also be licensed. Loss adjusting is a separate entity to thai of investigations. yet they continue to perform same tasks with no costs or genuine control; Institute of Mercantile Agents and other international associations including World Assn of Detectives and World Investigators Network exist. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 6 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation /995 Issue Group GO"ernment Costs/Suggested change WA definition of PI is more appropriale Benefits/Status Quo Exempt occupations are subject to professional ethics duties and obligations or regulated - no gains in further reJ(Ulalion. I Comments Lawyers have compelitive advantage: not subject to licensing and fees. irrespective of whether or not PI work arises during Ihe course of legal practice. Suggestion: SA exempts professionals whirst practicing in their profession - this reduces regulation in situations where PI wone is part of a professional's core business functions and prevents direct competilion with licensed Pis if the lawyer IS operating outside professional dUlies. Defmition and exemptions are approDriate. Minor change needed to reflect information should be faclual and confidential; Rationale for exemptions nol appropriate, apart from legal Dractitioners and accountants. Defmition appears appropriate. Role has expanded 10 event security; bodyguard is used more for personal protection and should have new criteria/licence. Suggested defmition: a person who IS primarily employed in maintaining peace and order in or about a public place or employed at a private function for the protection of patrons'. Definition not appropriale; body guarding should be removed from definition; trained security officers usually specialise in close personal prolection or body guarding, not CC; SO and CC licences should be combined as 93% of licensees hold combined licence. Arguably professional obligations depend on which professional body a person belongs to. b. Cro,", d ConI rollers (DP) I Industry NOTE: that the word 'primarily' in a definition may exclude those who perform secunty as a secondary function, but srill must be appropriate and require adequate training Suggested defmition: 'all persons who sell. provide advice. instruct in a mnnagerial way, markel, supply or maintain nny product/service which is held oul or represented In any way 10 be a securily product/service and requires person to enler premises or property, nol owned/occupied by himlherself or hislher firm or any of hislher parmers. either physically or eleclronically for the provision of the product or service. Defmilion is appropriate. Successful in NSW under 1997 changes 10 Securily Industry Act. Bodyguarding should be separate from CC: very differenl skills to guarding a person vs. controlling a crowd. 114 'An investigator is a person who for remuneration conducts- (a) Investigations into the conduct of individuals or bodies corporate or the character of individuals; (b) Surveillance work in relation to the matter.; referred to in paragraph (a); or (c) Investigations concerning mission persons' Security and Related Activities (Control) Act /996 (WA) Public Benefit Test Report- Appendix B Page 7 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Benefits/Status Quo Defmilion adequBlely describes CC duties, but also defmes duties of uniformed security officers. Comments The words CC should be dropped with title of 'bouncer' and licences endo~d with cBtegories of CC or bodyguard. Bod y-guard endorsement should only be available after completing appropriate approved course in close personal protection. Hansard: The move to regulate operators... followed increa.-;ed public concern over a number of reported incidents invo Iving assaults by crowd controllers on patrons of licensed premises''''. Purpose (in Hansard) is control of assaulls b)o ecs on patrons of licensed premI!5es"· - not intended to regulate unpaid volunteers. nor hotel managers. Hansard: When Act introduced, it was considered that large employers would not employ SOs who would potentially harm reputalion through ,mptopct conduct.! " Principle of propriety as mentioned in Hansard applies to small non-profit groups using volunteers for CC as it does fa large employers. ecs may perform non-traditional dUlies beyond defmition such as picking up glasses. escorting slaff from premises. opening, locking and securing premises; escorting transfer of cash around premises. Bodyguarding is a highly skilled area, whIch should not be conducted by persons that have not been lrained to a very hiclt slandard. Delinition not appropriate as it includes people not intended to be controlled/regulated by Act ego Volunteers at schools. church. sporting and nonprofit groups at fundraisers when alcohol is served; hotel manager and bar staff may be asked to act as or assist a licensed CC. Suggested defmition: 'a person who, for financial reward is at licensed premises principally for the purpose of maintaining order in or about the licensed premises. ' It may be argued that ces also perform duties of SO, requiring a different class of licence. An 80/20 rule should apply to decide whether person falls Within definition of CC (80% of duties as CC : considered as a CC) which would prolect hOle! managers and bar slaff who may be called upon by necessity to act as or assist Cc. To include volunteers would impose undue resUictions such as: unnecessary linancial burdens; compliance regardin~ keeping registers; compliance on JD of volunteer ces. NOTE: •For reward' is an clement of S9 offences therefore volunteers not captured. Definition should exclude pCbons conducting close protection; bodyguards should require significant specific training to safeguard public and those purportedly beinll protected. Defmilion appropriate and CCs need to be licensed; if not more violent 'bouncers' would return to industry, resulting in greater assaults upon public, Definition is appropriate. Should be included as security guard level 2. llS 116 II? Hansard. 2 December 1993, p6427 Hansard. 2 December 1993, p6427 Hansard, 2 December 1993, p6428 Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 8 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Locksmiths should not be licensed - internal and disciplinary procedures of Master Locksmiths Association ensure members maintain security of cuslomers and volunlarily rectify rare complaints received by the Association (one in Qld in 30 monlhs): licensing is unnecessary barrier to entry in contravention ofNCP (see independent consultants repon in VIC indicating no evidence thai locksmiths require licensing) Benefits/Status Quo Comments VIC cabinet rejected licensing locksmiths as it lacked demonstrated benefit 10 community; new licensing introduced in NSW 3 years ago and contmued regulation was strongly opposed by Master Locksmilhs who has made appropriate submissions to NSW police, Fair Trading eIC.; NSW legislation is draconian and imposes of industry mandatory joining associations, which contravene principles of freedom of association. SIRC rejected NSW regime but has supponed eXLension nationally. Defmition is appropriate. Consumer Government WA considers its CC definition more appropriate ,•• Suggeslion: Remove 'bodyguard' from defmilion wilh new definition outlining specific duties :lSSillned to this lask. Certain occupations or employment functions should not be included, be such as ushers employed at entertainment venues (football, concerts, perfonning arts). Ushers can be viewed :IS providing security: there are times they can be called upon to maintain physical presence at conclusion of event 10 deter crowds from enlering entenamment arena. Defmition is appropriate. c. Security (DN) Officers Industry Some persons caught operating unlicensed have manipulaled 'For reward' and definition of public place should be clarified (too ambiRUousl. Preferable to separate 'bodyguards', who protect a person. from 'bouncers' who maintain order in public elaces. Suggestion: '3 person who, for reward. patrols and/or guards another person's properly, assets and/or business operation. ' Defmition is appropriate. Casino employees should remain exempt who meet and exceed all criteria of Act bUI are also regulaled by GO\1; meet provisions of Casino Control Act which caters for the environment they are employed; regulation under two Acts would creale confusion of process and procedure to detriment of both Acts. llx •A crowd controller is a person who in respect of any licensed premises, place of entertainment, or public or private event or function, as part of his or her regulat duties perfonns for remuneration, any function of - (a) controlling or monitoring the behaviour of persons; (b) screening persons seeking entry; (c) removing persons for behavioural reasons, or any other prescribed activity (contained in regulations)' Security and Related Activities (Control) Act 1996 (WA) Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 9 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act J993 and the Security Providers Regulation J995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Combine SQ/CCs and move bodyguards into SO role. Suggested definition: 'a pelSOn who is employed to protect life and property through palrolling, C(lntrol1ing. securing. watching, escorting, guarding and alarm monitoring'. Cash in transit officers need to comply ",ilh Act to gel weapons licence; most in-house security officers are required by employers to be licensed: they should comply; line managers.' supervisors claim they do not go on site and therefore do not need licenses; changes should be made to ensure persons who direcVcontrol security providers are licensed, overcoming present situation where persons disqualified operate a business inslead. Benefits/Status Quo All SOs in Qld should be licensed; exemptions an: discriminatory and go against reason for Act: objective is to protect public; all officers come in conlact with public and should be trained and licensed accordingly; reasonable exception would be faclory guard or watchman direclly employed by owner of site 10 walch only that sile. Comments Defmition of 'security product or service': one that (a) IS designed to SLOp or deter an offence being committed; (b) gives warning or advice of an offence having been or aboul to be committed; (c) gives warning or advice of an event thaI requires human intervention for the protection of persons or property; (d) restricts or controls the entry or exit of persons to or from places either physically or electronically; (e) monitors the movement of people or property either physically or electronically; (l) is held out to be designed to direct people. including motor vehicles; (g) when: persons are hired to direclly protect persons or orooerty. SuggeSled definition: 'all persons who sell, provide advice, instruct in a managerial way, markel, supply or mainlain any product or service which is held out or represented in any way 10 be a security produce or service and requires the person to enter premises or propeny. not owned or occupied by hil1llherself or hislher fmn or any of hislher parlners either physically or eleclronically for lite provision of the oroducl or service.' There should be no exemptions; may create competitive disadvanlage for private companies nonnally tendering security services; exempt persons may not be appropriately trained. The only exemptions should be police, military and other similar organisations. Delinitlon appropriate, but for exemptions. Benefit: licensed SOs are trained. 10 Further research is reqUired in regard S7(2) exemptions. Those carrying out any form of private security should be licensed; no one should be exempt from Act. Definition of SO is appropriate; Ihrough training and major changes to industry regarding professionalism of modem 50s; Acl should provide for only licensed guards to patrol and prolect property. Delinition IS partially appropriate - uniformed SO performs CC dulles; not uncommon for clients to ask for uniformed SOs f'or CC purposes. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 10 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act /993 and the Security Providers Regulation /995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Definition is not appropriate: it includes people not intended to be controlled or regulated ie. volunteer, to act as SOs by schools, churches. sporting clubs or non.profit organisations at fundraisers; current definition does not recognise protect ion of people as well as property; should avoid inclusion of unintended persons; and reflect true intentions of Govl. Suggested definition: 'a person who, for financial reward patrols or guards another person or orooer1v' . All persons should be licensed: reliance on assumption that large employers would not employ persons who would harm reputation through improper conduct is a fallacy; all persons who act as SOS should be subject to legislative regime ollter than Criminal Code and should be properly trained and licensed. Logical to expand defmilion given that directly employed SOS require same competency. hold same weapons and face same dangers as those employed by SP. No categories should be eltempt. There should be no eltemplions; given SO is defined as 'a person who for reward parrols or guards another persons property', it follows that all who are encompassed by definition muSt be licensed. Benefits/Status Quo Comments To make volunteers comply would reslrictions like impose undue burden; unnecessary financial compliance of keeping registers (NOTE: 'for reward' is an element of the offences in 59 therefore volunteers are not captured). There should be an 80120 rule - if not doing over 80% of SO duties, no license required. DefmllJon is appropriate. Definition is appropriate. Consumers Government Suggestion: use 'remuneration' in place of 'reward' Suggestion: SA Act incorporates alarm installers into security agent definition. Rationale: such persons obtain knowledge and information on how to circumvent alarm syslems leaving consumers in a vulnerable posilion Ellemption for those guarding employer's property is appropriate. Definition is appropriate. . Consumers often pa y large deposits and face significant losses if not dealt with appropriately. Persons with criminal histories are eltcluded from market reducing risk of consumer detriment. Employers hiring in-house staff should ensure those staff are aware of obligattons and limitations under Criminal Code and other lel!islalion. DefinitIOn is appropriate Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 1t National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Cost of licensing those currenlly exempt to Govtto license all persons who guard/patrol employers properties. Benefits/Status Quo Defmition is appropriate. remain. Current exemplions should Comments Difficult to ascertain employee role; could considered most employees have obligation (perceived or real) to guard employers property ego employee witnesses person shop lifting in employer's business; it is reasonable 10 assume onus on employee to guard employer's oremises. 'For reward' has been manipulated by persons caught unlicensed. There should be no exemptions; if you perform duties of SO you should be adequately trained and licensed' employer is irrelevant. d. Security Firms (DPS) Indust~· Appears appropriate. Any organisation, whether contract or in-house should be licensed. Suggeslion: 'a person or partnership, government department or registered business that operates inhouse security, whether for financial gain or not, that provides personnel for the protection of life and property lhrough ces, sos or Pis.' Suggestion: 'a person or group of persons except where acting alone, incorporated or not, who hold themselves to supply the services of aSP'. Many sole operators work from home, hold licenses but are nol required to hold firm licence; breeds unprofessionalism; they can reduce prices but do not have resources, infrastructure and eXJlOsure to upgrade/improve skills; cannot afford insurance due to charging minimum rate; cannot prOVIde resources to monitor/control operalions in a way that safeguards clients against professional indemnity issues; sole operators are more likely to take short culS in elhical practices; exemption allows abuse of the system and disadvantages repulable firms; firm pays SSs to hold firm hcence, but sole operators are nOI requ ired; gives comnetitive advantal!e to sole ooeralors. All persons who carry out private security should be licensed and subject to minimum Certificate II; licenses obtained under grandfather clause should do course in modem security guards ensuring they are aware of modem security needs. Detinition is appropriate. Defmition is appropriate. Further research is needed to ascertain level of sole operators who contract directly to clients rather lhan subconlrnctto ftrm. Who should hold firms licence and who does not have the appropriate resources to conduct their business in the public interest. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 12 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation /995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Definition is not appropriate; it includes people not intended to be conlrolled or regulated; not intended to include those who by way of an arm lenglh transaction, sub.(;ontract or lhose who as an intermediary. Suggested defmltion: 'a person, partnership or corporation who directly employs CCs, SOs or Pis for financial reward. ' Benefits/Status Quo Comments Eg: PI in Brisbane receives instructions to conducl inquiries in Townsville - PI sends file to agent in monitoring Townsville; alarm company engaged security patrol to respond to alarms on behalf of alarm clients, SO trading in own right subconlIllcts another SO or flrTIl to provide services for a client; school hire hall to external group, as part of hire agreement group pays school a fee for having lhe schools contracted security company provide security for lhe function. NOTE: Most Govt schools in greater Brisbane area use Govl Protective SOs; schools are responsible for own security, but mostly for alarms/security, ralher Ihan CC work: if school or private hirer uses secunty lhey eilher use Govt who faIl under Govt Security Act or licensed oenonnelunderSPA. Defml\lon annears aDoroDriale. Defmition is allDropriate. Defmition is annropriale. Firm is far too broad and includes PI fums who do nol provide security whal.SOever; adverse publicity for firms who provide security is greater lhan adverse publicity against PIs; there should be seoanlle definition Definition is annrollriate. Consumers Government SUl!l!eslion: use 'remuneration' in olace of 'reward' Definilion is annrODrinte. Defmilion is annropriate. •For reward' has been manipulated by persons caul!ht unlicensed Su~ontraclon could be c1nrified • lhere is industry confusion. Definition is appropriate. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 13 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 Issue 3 Group Industry Costs/Suggested change Apphcant incurs initial cost; criterion, training and general perfonnance expectations are more prohibitive to individuals who altempt to enter Industry when unsuitable or have wrong molives for joinin!! this vocation. Benefits/Status Quo Relates directly to spirit of Act and aims it was deSigned to achieve; all categories should be licensed; to relax critena would lead to infiltration of undesirables and lanlish reputations, painfully developed over recent years; best option is not necessarily cheapest or mosl expedient bUl long term benefits will outweigh short lerm costs; Licensing eliminales obvious undesirables; lhere will always be persons able to meet criteria who are not suitab Ie bUl prevalence of these p~rsons is reduced: in most cases, unsuitable personnel are quickly identified and may be dealt with accordingly; number of assaults and complaints significantly reduced since introduction of Act; reflection lhal more appropriate personnel are involved in industry. Present occupational groups should be licensed; licensing ensures operalors are fit and proper persons and competency training has been undert.aken; licensing has done a lot to clean up industry, particularly PI and CCs. but CCs still require continual policmg to ensure il doesn't fall below expected standards: hene/ils are obtained by firm and employees; firms are assured of gelling staff who have completed enlry level course training and aware how to conduct themselves in a professional manner; Consumers benefil: operators are checked as appropriate and have completed tr.Iining; licensees get immediate confidence from public. All categories should be licensed; provides public wilh knowledge that person pnwidlllg service is licensed and fulfilled obligations salisf:Ktorily to licensing aulhority; proof persons have fulJillcd necessary licensing requirements and fit and appropriate; proves competency and successful completion of lraining; allows Licensing 10 have a register of all licensees; restricts type of person lhat may obtain licence; gives public security and knowledge Ihere is some Govt control over industry panicipanls; GoVl bcnefits Irom collection of fees enabling lhem to operale licensing register; allows GoVl to audit firms and check individuals; with separate licences. firms can decide whatlVoe of securitv to Drovide a service on. Comments Govt body should receive initial fees to offsel admin costs; applicant should incur initial cosl of application but be reimbursed by employer after 6 months once skills arc enhanced resulting in a positive effeci on operation; employee should have become an asset 10 employer Bnd enhanced operation; reasonable thai be employee's inilial costs reimbursed; genuine employer will recoup his outlay as a result of employee's enhanced skills. which should have a positive effect on operation. Police should have ability 10 dire<:tly prosecule. Should all groups be licensed? Does licensing contribute to meeting objectives I.e. safer environment which meets community What expectations? Ilre the costs and benefit of licensing? (DP6) Suggestion: consultants, loss prevention officers. sales and technical seCIors should also be licensed. COSI to industry oflicence. Costs: Production of licence (photo, personnel costs, production. mailing, registry; burden falls on SOs and flTTll5, bUI firms recover costs through conlracts. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 14 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Suggestion: traineeship/ apprenticeship and regulated lr3ining rngime 10 ensure suitable persons only enter field; rationale: industry allracts variety of people as it traditionally required little qualtlications; not considered a lrade or profession hence lacking qualification and quality which is nol m lite public interest and as such, one cannot expect objectives to be mel; OFT would ouly be required to ensure appropriateness, and employers would be reqUIred to monitor/control behaviour of SPs; slricler control on training process is required; achieved through enforcement or industry code. COSl of licence is minimal - lraining = $600-$700 for a two week period, paid by applicant. Firm pays cost of ftrm licence, recovered from clienls, which appears unproportionally high in relation to cost of individual licence. Benefits/Status Quo Objective appropriate but not being mel. Licensing contributes to objectives - it ensures p"rson~ are fit and proper and achieves a standard of qualification applicable to prospective/respective roles. Comments Training needs 10 be monitored by legislation or by industry under code of practice. If monitored by industry, industry needs to be broken inlO difference areas (PI, SO/CC and technical); higher qualificalious needed before employed or traineeship developed for different categories; objectives will not be met until industry is viewed as a profesSIon. Costs are met by industry. All categories should be licensed; Iicensmg contributes 10 objectives by controlling who enters industry; has contributed to safer environment to a certain extent; separale categories will assist Govt to keep tighter control and may open furlher opportunity to persons who may not meet criteria for one category, bUI may for another. Licensing fees help Govt implement licensing process; Helps keep undesirable persons out of industry; licensing essential to maintain accountability; allows induslry ""ntrolling bodies to identify those who would defY ohjectives of legislation; assurance to clients that operators are legal; assurance to ftrms that hired Orlerator has c1ean:d Iicensinlt crileria. More inspectors making random checks of persons in workplace is needed to be effective. Pis should be licensed under Qld lOP Act - Investigators Charter is complelely different to security operalives. Regulation should be extended 10 all securily occupations; there are many opportunities for abuse ofoosition. All categories should be licensed and subject to misconduct provisions; costs should be borne by SP by way of pro-nta fee structure levied on employer; fee structure should rnflect lotal cost of administration by Govt (a cost recovery basis) Act should be rewritten to ensure ethical and moral behaviour in industry. SP Misconduct Tribunal should be created so industry profeSSIOnal becomes more supplier of service to Qld public. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 15 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act /993 and the Security Providers Regulation /995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Locksmiths and persons selling/installing security equipment includmg alanns, video surveillance should be licensed; persons guarding employer's property should also be licensed; improves reputation of industry and ensures they are trained to same standard as other SOs; any directly employed SOs may carry weapons and rna y be a danger to public if nOI properly trained; licensee bears some or all costs orobtaining licence. Benefits/Status Quo All persons currently requmd 10 be licensed should remain so; ensures industry that has previously attracted dishonest operators remains free of some dishonest operators: licensing makes community safer by reducing inappropriate persons working in industry and by having correclly identified licensed people to ensure they are accountable for actions; without hcensmg il may be difficult to identify a firm or SO when incident occurs. Comments Union has been informed of limes where thefts have occurred shortly after inslallation of alarm system or new lock with no sign of forced entry or malfunction of security device. NOTE: Prior to a weapons licence being issued for Ihe purpose of securily guarding Ihe applicant muSl have a SO licence under the SPA. All categories should be licensed; dangerous 10 have incompetent or cnminal inslaller of alanns, electronic locks or ecrv; level playing field is necessary to regulate technical equipment installers and ooeralors. All categories of SP should be licensed for public safety and criminal checks; licensing has not contributed 10 obiectives. All categories should be licensed; no exceplions; licensing makes pcople Ihink seriously about doing something unethical: losing licence and income can contribute to appropriate behaviour (Eg given); cost minimal compared to cost of equipping PI (computer, printer, digitaVvideo camera, mobile pbone, email. vehicle); employers only want licensed employees; usually give probauonary period to prove compelence; if lraining and licensing removed, employers will have more applications, but reduced quality; employers are answerable to clients and need to meet their expeClations; removal will not make it easier for potential PIs, bUI more difficult. All categories sbould be licensed to assist maintain levels of accountability. professionalism and recognition of that profeSSion: licensee bears costs. licence issued 10 individuals is not recognised as being personal identification by some establishments (banks) althou!lh Govt issues it. OIT receives revenue from licensing. Licensing has contributed 10 a objectives; public faith Ibat SPs are appropriately screened and licensed (Egs given); PIs going door to door for witnesses can show lD so residents know they are not a potential thief; PI benefits from trained, equipped staff with national qualification; employer benefits from having trained stafT; client benefits from a better trained, more professional PI. Most people don't complain against SP because it is usually at nil!bl or they bave been drinkinl!. If PI is not eanting over S1,000 per week sibe should not be in industry as productivily is insufficient. Licensing has contributed to a degree, tbrough better training and higher penalties imposed on individuals and firms breaching Act and Regulation; Govt benefits from funds received No additional advantages to PI, individual or ftrrn from holding licence; not permitted access to certain information, even though paid and trained to handle In fonnatlOn in a correel and lawful manner; no recognition by other Govt gents of work performed by Pis though we have provided assistance that has resulled in sorne crimes being solved! detected. Public Benelit Test Report - Appendix B Page 16 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Ac/ J993 and the Security Providers Regula/ion J995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change All categories should be licensed to ensure all existing and potential security operatives have achieved B minimum level of skill and are fiVproper to undenake dUlies and responsibilities; COSI usually borne by licensee. Benefits/Status Quo Licensing has conlributed to a safer environment, bUI stops short as a result of inappropriate policing,; licensing impacts positively on public perception of industry; fees paid to OFT; consumers benefil. I Comments Consumer Government An oplion for Ihree ycur renewals under the SPA has received Cabinet approval and licenses must be extended in tenn to an optional 3 year period. Costs met by applicant: individual categories enables appropriate training All groups should be licensed to ensure fil and proper characler to take position of trust in relation to property/affairs of others; checks prior to licensing ie. character, suitability and compelency contribule toward objectives; screening applicants and wearing ID has contributed to a safer environment; training supports fit and DrODer crileria. All categories should be licensed; licensing assists in decreasing chance of unelhical persons applying for a licence; licenSIng has achieved this to a degree: SOs should be more aware of consequences of Iheir actions and 'bouncers' can be mOl!: readily identified. All categories should be licensed; most olTer service 10 community, often perfonning community-policmg role, obtaining and providing sensitive andlor <:onfidential information; licensing ensures only appropriate persons with training are lawfully employed in induslJy; has contributed to safer environment by ensuring inal'propriule persons are not lawfully ~mployeL! in indu'try and providing penalties for those who breach Act; Benefit: end user by dealing with better Irained, more reputable and professional SP; industry with improved wages and conditions, more competitive with better-trained and more professional personnel. Industry is crowing in imponance within communily; licensing provides for appropriate persons with appropnaLe training 10 be lic~nsed; licensing contribules toward safer environment due to licensing requirements All calegories should be licensed: introduced because of emerging trend of unacceptable behaviour, as a result of undesirable and unskilled people laking up occupation; system of licensing appropriate people via legislative framework was response and lhis is reflected in objects of Act. Alternative regulation tor PIs under code could be considered; level playing field for PI industry; costs are ultimately passed on to end user; industry bears costs of licenSIng and !raining; Govt bears cost of administering act including licensing and regulalOry functions; costs arc more than met by licence fees received by industry. Consider excluding Pls from Act given Iimlled numbers, lesser in volvement with community policing and security roles; peers in other industries are exempt ~g. Home security, locksmiths, insurance agencies, loss adjusters, legal and accountants. Argument PIs do nOI require licensing; lower risk, few persons who perform duties that do not fall under exemptions ie. most Pis fulfilling those duties are unlicensed due to exemption provisions. Some barriers to licensing all SPs; SP in remote areas eg. Difficult for licensees to hire licensed CCs, inc Iud ing but not restricted to indigenous communities: difficult for local people who want to obtain licences due to g~ographic isolation (lack of access to property training) and high incidence of people with disqualifying offences, particularly indigenous communities. Lack of resources directly toward enforcement allows inappropriate persons to operate, to the annoyance of those who comply. It is desirable to overcome difficulties (in remote areas - where thel!: arc difficulties with training and appropriateness). without reducing need for SPs to be licensed. Public Benefit Test Report- Appendix B Page 17 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 Issue 4 Licensing Criteria are criteria appropriate? (OP7) Group Industry Costs/Suggested change Benefits/Status Quo Licensing criteria are appropriate; no dispule that licensing is onerous and often tedious but tbe alternative is degeneration into environment that prevailed prior to Ihe introduction; Act and present regime has served its purpose well and lifted the image and performance of the industry; with constructive input from industry members. minor modification may be made to reOect current environment and requirements but essentially Act IS sound and performing well. Il is organisations wilhin industry thai have rOOm for improvement. Comments Although not familiar with procedure employed to establish whether or not an applicant is a "suitable person"; criteria for Casino emplc>yees requires scrutiny of criminal reconds and associations (1ocal, state, federal and international). financial dealings and employmenl records for the 10 yeaI1l prior to application; these criteria should be required of all personnel within the industry; If person is a "Key" person wilhin the organisation then scrutiny should be extended 10 15 years prior to the application. Security is no different from police; sensitivity and public trust; the only way 10 ensure potential licensees are fit IS to ensure every applicant has a thorough security check; concerns thai firms breach olher legislation such as WHS and Industrial Relations; industry ignores legislation; needs 10 be link to OFT for other legislative breaches; given problems wilh police forces, caMOI logically argue that requirements 10 restricl entry should be relaxed. Suggestion: ASIO checks should be mandatory. Criteria is appropriate; needs or public far outweigh other concerns; ensures personnel of highest integrity and ability in industry; sensitive environment requires truSI. honesty. reliability and dependability from clients and public; industry is integral part of Australia's light against crime and corruption needing high ethical standard; only way 10 ensure this is to hav~ extensive cnteria thaI ensures only the besl are licensed; strici controls must remain - cannot affond 10 loosen control on an industry that has such a poor reputalion. Criteria are adequate and fair to employers and emnlovees. Licensing criteria is appropriate. Licensing criteria appears appropriate now. Licensing criteria is appropriale; keeps undesirable persons out of induslry; present system is basic and cost effeclive; licensing is necessary to conlrol stakeholders Standards should be national 10 allow for common standards and oortabililv of licences. Suggestion: Should be expanded so 3 convictions or orders againsl licensee for any mailer by any court or tribunal disqualify fum and officers from holdin!! licence. Should include all categories or physical and electronic security Criteria aooear 10 meet communilY expectations. Criteria are appropriate. Strict control remains the key to keepin~ industry successful. Most slll.kehoiders would nol relish the thought of returning to lhe literally cul-throat pre-licensing days. Make il compulsory to regisler ",ith an approved security industry association (exists in NSW). Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 18 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act J993 and the Security Providers Regulation J995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Benefits/Status Quo Criteria are appropriale - licensing standards should not be lowered. Comments Firm must undergo more stringenl scrutiny as to whom Nns firm and should be licensed: a register EBA and CUrTent public liability insurance and WorkCover policy should be part of firm criteria. Eg if licensing removed: anyone with camera could call them selves surveillance agent; follows claimanl in vehicle; harassment and WH&S issues: if followed wrong person, caused accidenl, injuries; add 10 claimant's stress; claimant's lawyers will consider who opened market up to cowboys and contribution of that decision make to client's addilional harassment and stress claim. Age is 100 high - should be lowered 10 17 with I year probation - allows greater access to traineeships; VIC offers traineeship in Cert II Investigative Services; if licensing abandoned, increase in invesligation risk: new entrants undercut hourly rnles to win business; If you do something wrong, unethical or illegal and arc exposed you lose your licence; makes you unable to work in industry; face career change; although PI licence gives no power, proof of ID is essential for willless cooperation; fit and proper means you understand several important issues relating 10 galhering and storing information and presenting evidence. Licensing is satisfactory to a certain degree, but should be minimum education level say Grade 10 for individuals making application for PI licence; consideration should be given to changing firm requirements - applicants should have 4 years expenenc.: as individual before firm licence issued, with some formal education in business manaltement. Criteria arc appropriale and do not need amcndinJ!.. Consumer Government Criteria is appropriate. Criteria arc appropriate; CCs or 'bouncer.)' require a higher level 0 f communication skills and abililY to de· escalate confrontational si tualions than SOs. Criteria are aoorooriate. It is not beinlt policed. Trnining package no longer needs CEO approval - National Training Package, Cer! II (PRS98) adopted; test needs urgent amendment - unless person is convicted of offence OFT is very limited in being able to take action againSl unsuitable persons holding a licence. Criteria are aPllrooriate. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 19 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 Issue a. 0Hr 18 (DP8) Group Industry Costs/Suggested change Benefits/Status Quo 18 should be mlOlmum ag~ to apply for licence; induslry demands high level malurity from personnel and significant technical and general experience. Few 18 y~ar aIds possess these prerequisnes: youthful cxubcrancc is not what is required in emerg~n~y or hIghly volatile situations. Rash and ill considered actions can often resull in serious or even life threatening incidents and muSI be considered at employment stage. Comments More preferable age is 21, but !his may be discriminalory to certain mdtviduals - onus is on employers to screen personnel 10 ensure !hey have required maturity and experience 10 professionally carry out dUlies. No cost to industry; age should be raised age 10 21 years; not only requires high inlegrity, but maturity, laleral thinking, responsible, loyal. dependable. which come wilh experience and age. Age restriction is legitimate; promotes a more mature and reliable workforce. Age is appropflale - persons under I~ do nOI have maturity 10 handle many situations they could face daily. Persons lack maturity andlor life skills to perform roles thaI require responsibilily for welfare and safety of people; detrimenl to person and o!hers if not responsible/mature. I Age must be at least I~ years, possibly 21. If securily technical service occupaUons were captured, an exception for lrainees and apprentices would need to occur. Eg. PI investigating activities of a spouse requires correcl and professional management or several lives could be severely affected. Persons under 18 are juveniles under the Juvenilf! Justices Act 1992, creating complications if prosecutions were necessarv. Age restriction is appropriate; gives chance of haVing life experience and ability to work in restricted areas of licensed premtses. Age is an important factor, which must be maintained. Persons under 21 provisional licence. should have Age is appropriate; promotes public confidence in SP ability to carry out duties. Age is necessary: being a competent SO requires a level of maturity; it is likely a person under 18 would not be respected in role by public which may lead 10 unnecessary conflict and violence, particularly for ces. Aile is appropriate; maturity. Age is not appropriate - precludes persons from undertaking course of study unlil al least 17 'I. vears; costs are lost learninl1. time; 18 is ridiculous. Age is appropriate; no prior expetience; applicant should obtain position with flf1Jl for 12 months on provisional licence; e~ perience gained would assist trninee to have under.landmg of industry and requiremenls and empathy when dealing with distressed clients; benefil is maturity. Age is appropriate: pcrsnns who have not achieved this age are not able to be employed on licensed premises, CC venues; lack of maturity and life skills required. Exception for consideration: apprentice in technical services should they be included in licensing criteria? Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 20 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act J993 and the Security Providers Regulation /995 Issue Group Consumer Government Costs/Suggested change Age reslriction could be relaxed to those in a bona fide training or apprenticeship scheme. Benefits/Status Quo Age is appropriate; maturity and life experience is required to W1dertake duties to communily expectations: benefits outweiilh costs. Age is appropriate; large percentage of SP are employed in licensed premises with existing 18+ age reslriction; ability of persons under IS to competently and professionally perform SP functions is questionable and may not meel communily expectations. Comments Lowerins age could result in a person working in an area they are not lel(ally entilled to enter. Aile is aDDroDriate. b. Appropriate person test (DP9) InduSlr)' Suggeslion: Domestic violence orders and degree of violence should be put in category of not tit and Droner esoeciallv ifthreateninl! With a weaDon.. Some individuals may have transgressed at some time and later rehabilitated will be prohibited from industry; there will always be casualties of any broad based criteria; to dispense with criteria is unacceptable. Concerns: what happens after they enter industry no procedures to report dishonesty, unlawful activity etc. Suggestion: mandatory 10 report incident to licensing for action. Appropriate person test is important: essential maintaining industry standards. 10 Crucial licensing requirement 10 ensure only persons of good ch8l1lcter and menial health are employed: efTective in ensuring only persons of exceptional character are able to enter industry; benefits outweigh costs; must ensure we have only the best security in the induslry. More slringenl inilial criteria usually translates to fewer problems at a later time; preferred applicants would have little difficulty regardless of how strinRenl the criteria. Test could be more extensively worded; need to maintain standard licensed; must report after inapplUpria tc behaviour and take aelion: this would improve operating standards of most firms and officers; reporting should include induslrial relalions. WHS and other conviclions or inappropriate action by flTms and officers; need tighter control 10 ensure high slandard is improved and maintained. COSlS of licence application; OFT pays QPS a fee to conduct criminal history checks. Some questionable characters still obtain licences, but induslry and community usually regulate these few. Test is very important to employers; they know employees do not have criminal records: clients presume if operator is licensed Ihey have passed appropriate person test and should be honest and trustworthy; also see DP I I; benefit (0 clienlS; presume operator is licensed and therefore appropriate. honest and trustworthy. Important licensing requirement; there is tendency for inappropriate persons to enler indusLry; open to corruption and/or unethical practices by its design; important for test to be stringently and vigilantly observed: assists in ensuring only acceptable persons operate as SP; mainlaining tesl is in public interest and meets objectives of lel!islation. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 21 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Prevents wrong type of person entering indusLry. Reducing standard would put indusLry back to I970sl19110s (ore-licensinlt). Cosls are irrelevant. Benefits/Status Quo Test is important to conlrol persons entering industry. Test does not need revision, but persons need to be checked on renewal. Test is important - employer. client and public must be assured that person who polices corporate activities must be honest, no personal criminal involvement. of sound mind, free of debts likely to cause dishonesty and defmition free of criminal conviction. Test is important to protce t reputation of industry and interesls ofgeneral public. Test is impOl1ant is effective in mainlaining industry standards by ensuring only persons of acceplable character operate as SP. but only if criteria is enforced. Comments Criminal history ched(s on renewal should be compu lsory, not just random. Provisions do not need revising. Test does not go far enough to achieve goals. SPA nor CL(RO) Act requires disclosure about whe!her applicant has been interviewed, investigated, charged with criminal offence that is still 10 be brought before !he courts for determination. No requirement to disclose whelher charges are withdrawn due to absence of witnesses, complaints or no evidence. This allows inappropriate persons to be licensed despite being known to police, interviewed. investigated or charged by never convicted of an offence. Test is not a barrier to improper or unelhical conduct once B person is licensed. hence there is demonstrated need for SP Misconduct Tribunal. Current tesl needs to be revised they do not go far enough to prevent ing inappropriate persons en termg mdUSlTy. OFT should check if applicant is known to police. Test is imperative to maintain public confidence in industry and participants; Test is important. though not particularly effective as it has not been well enforced. Test would be effective if promoted and enforced. Test is important - honesly and integrity of every licensee must be tested; applicants must be screened: Must be policed harder and monitors; Ihere should be clear avenues of compliance; test is not effective by t !self - industry needs more policing; suggest code of conduce and hIgher Slandards. Costs met by increasing licence fees; most of industry would agree to higher fees for greater policing. No costs to training organisations or applicant. Test is important - risk of potential conviction is deterrent to Pis wbo may olherwise trespass. lie, disclose confidential informalion or use olher dubious means of gathering information: Requirements need revision to include no criminal convictions. plus attainment of suilable qualificalion (for Pis) ie. Cert IV in InvestilP;ation Services. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 22 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Costs of not mainlaining some test would affect general public and create dislrust toward all licensees. Benefits/Status Quo Test is important and should not be abolished in any way. Minimum age necessary for firm applicants. Benefits - without them any person could apply and receive licence after complying with training. Comments Changes need to be revised particularly relating to laws of bankruptcy- many persons take adv3m3!!c of system to alleviate r~rsonallbusiness but debts. genuine persons have been declared bankrupt not through their own fault or negligence should not be penalised further explanation should be provided and if nOlhing untoward, no objection to licence after all other reQuirements fulfilled. While criteria are appropriate, in methodology employed compliance ascertaining is questionable, given the number of inappropriate persons who are issued with licences. !rafflc Consider including offences such as OUI, speeding and other driving licence offences, but not dangerous driving which causes serious iniurv or death. Test is critical to employers. consumers and industry as a whole; current measures ensure only fit and proper persons of acceptable character gain entry to industry. Consumer Government SuggesLion: On-going minor or traffic conviclions should be considered in establishing licensees regard for rules and regulation Some persons may be victim or circumstances and barred from market - this must be balanced against community expeclation that licensees attain appropriate standard Ensures security providers are fil and proper to hold position ofsuch authority. Test is effective, depending on where bar is set in relation 10 relevancy and recency of convictions or behaviour. The test may not be effective as a perception exists that some 'bouncers' may use illegal subslance~ for body building which may have other medical side effects. Costs to all stakeholders is negligible, except those with criminal history; indirect costs for conducling criminal history checks and professional COSIS incurred by Off in resisting appeals through court where persons appeal against licence refusal. Helps ensure only the most trustworthy persons are employed in industry. Maintains a high standard of persons in the industry Test is important. Effective in maintaining industry slandards. Benefits: ensure persons with criminal histories who may pose threat to community and induslry are not eligible for licence; maintains industry slandards of professionalism' and meets community exoeclations. Almost everything in the industry revolves around trust. Do not need revision Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 23 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act /993 and the Security Providers Regulation /995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Current requirements need revision - too restriclive in determining appropriateness; should reflect whal are eXlsling disqualtfying offence provisions; conviction could stand irrespective of if 11 is recorded or not; 100 many operators have eilher obtained a licence or been able to hold a licence after committing a disqualifying offence, being convicled by had 'no conviction recorded' (0 enable continued licensing. Not effective test. Benefits/Status Quo Test is important; SP arc takIng on roles that were performed by Police, being utilised more throughout community; perception by community Iheyare of good character and have appropriate checks performed upon applicalion to support this. Comments Contributing loward ineffeclive lest: inadequacies of Mutual Recognition legislation, Jack of cooperation and sharing of mforrnation from police and courts and inconsislenl penalties imposed by magistrates. Problems wilh OFT obtaining information to accurately assess mental heallh - reference may be deleted due to new Mental Health Acl (Due 02/02)- can provide examples (confidential medical information). 10 years may be excessive for some disqualifying offences ie. steeling loaf of bread ~ unable to hold licence for 10 years - sliding scale would be better with lesser offences reduced 10 5 years. c. Disqualifying offences (DP10) Industry Suggestion: addendum 10 added to list to Ihe effeci of, 'or any other offence that, in the opinion of the CEO, gives sufficient cause to reasonably suggeSI Ihalthe applicant is not an appropriate person'. Test is imoortant ltcensinl! relluirement. Offences are relevant. Offences are relevant. While not qualified to commenl, from experience diSllualifviOlI. offences are aoorooriate. Offences are relevant. Offences are relevant. Disqualifying offences should be at Commissioner for Police discrelion as directed from time to time. No disqualifying offences should be removed. SURl!est industry relations issue for reoeat offenders Offences are relevanl. OlTences are relevant. There are no other offences that should be captured. OlTences are relevant. No others should be added or removed. Offences are relevant and do not require additions or exclusions. Offences are relevant Offences under included. TPA should be Consumer Governmenl SuggeSlion: There should be some discretion or appeal process to consider cin:umstances of conviction. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 24 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Schedule of disqualifying offences is too broad, capturing offences which may not be relevam to delermine appropriateness [polential unnecessary barrier] i.e. Ch 9 ~ unlawful assembly! breaches of the peace Suggestion: Offences in all 17 Chapters should be examined to determine whether each offence should be a legislative bar to entry. I Benefits/Status Quo Comments In the interest of fairness, CEO should have discretion to disregard offences in assessing appr0priat~ncss i.e. young person panicipates in illegal demonstration, bUI no problems in 8 years - it may be appropriate to disregard previous offence in this circumstance. DiSQualifving offences are relevant. Disqualifying offences an: relevant. Inclusion of FTA offences would be of benefit; should include, but nol limited to False and Misleading Represenlation offences unda ITA. Should be refmed to Legal for comment. Suggested inclusions: dangerous driving (Ch29): some offences are included but not if charged with regulatory offence such as ,hopliflmg. compared with stealmg; damage to property, fraud under Code is included but social securiLy fraud is not; assault is included, but nOL assault of police officer under Police Powers and Responsibilities Act d. Disclosure offences (DP!!) of I Industry Disqualifying offences are adequate. Disclosure is reasonable - persons could reasonably be expected to deal with valuable assets therefore full disclosure is essential. If person has shown dishonest tendencies it is unreali>1ic thaI they be expose 10 significant temptation. A person in position of responsibility/authority mUSI be seen as a person of sound character. Community has a right to assume that any person in position or responsibility is of good character and appropriate to hold position. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 25 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Benefits/Status Quo Not unreasonable.- If we want high integrily and honesty, having eX-i:riminals in our midst is not the way to go. Saf~ly of community far outweighs indIvidual r~qU1rcmcnl. Must loos sight of what the secunty industry is all ahout 'The protectIOn of life and property'. Present system (criminal history) will indicate whether further checking is required. Benefits to community outweigh costs - intention of test is to ensure publi<: that operatives are honest and trustworthy - imponant lhat public is not subjected to operatives who have found a way around the system, demonstrating a lack of integrity. Important that applicants disclose criminal history induslry attracts inappropriate persons. Benefits to community far outweigh costs on applicants - public have a right to be safe and/or engage services of SP without risk of detriment; public perceive licensing provides guarantee of safety and low risk of detriment. Comments Once a criminal, always a criminal. Suggestion: Test should include persolls who are found guilty of an offence wllh opportunity to appeal if they consider they are now appropriate. Rationale: many operators are convicted of disqualifying offences. but not recorded - most offences relate to h0l1esty. violence and weapons, primary offences lhat should be considered in deterrnininl: appropriatenes.~. Cost is irrelevant and should not be a consideration. Does not require applicant to disclose whether person has been interviewed, investigated or charged with criminal offence that is yet to be brought before court for determination due to absence of WItnesses, complaints or withdrawn charges or no evidence - this has allowed persons known to police but not convicled 10 enter industry. Requirement is reasonable so government body knows type of person entering industry; governing body should act on behalf of community's best wishes. Requirement is appropriate, necessary and reasonable. SOs are responsible for handling millions of dollars in cash daily, gold, jewels and property - client must be assured their securily learn can be trusted. Requirement is reasonable. Special consideration could be given if convicted of a summary offence more than five years old - perhaps referees and other indicalors can show applicant is appropriatc. Licensing body has responsibility to do everything practical to ensure commumty can realise their perception i.e. safeJlow risk of detriment. [t is governing body's is responsible for not allowing persons who do not meet criteria into industry. People must be prepared to declare their post to realise lhe importance of trust placed on them with SP licence. Does not go far enough to prevent entry ofinappropriale persons. Apphcants should be r~quired to disclose information regarding being ever charged with a criminal offence and OFT should conduct inquiries also to ascertain whelher applicant IS adversely known to police. Disclosure by applicants is fair and warranted. given the level oftrost communities put in SPs. Mainlaining disclosure regardless of rehabilitation period is imporlam - industry affords operator.; more opportunity Jor criminal activity that other industries so it is necessary to ensure persons with serious criminal history are excluded. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 26 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Ac/ 1993 and the Security Providers Regula/ion 1995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Benefits/Status Quo Requirement is reasonable. Benefils to community outweillh COS'S on applicants. Requirement is reasonable. All criminal history should be disclosed; BenefilS outweigh costs Comments Eg: 3 years ago writer worked for naltonal in\estigations agency who employed convIcted rapist as a surveillance agent - len employment when nerson tried to sell him heroin. Offence ilSelf should be considered and not \hat offence has been committed. Requirement is reasonable, although once history has been disclosed oUlslde of 5-1 0 year period. information should not be subjected to public record. Benefits do nol outweiv:h costs. Requirement is reasonable and benefits far outweigh costs to aDDlicant. Consumer Go,'ernmenl Requirement is appropriate - licensing officer needs to be aware of relevant information in considering applications Benefits outweigh coslS Information \hat rna) predict bebaviour. which could inflame a critical incident should be a relevant factor in licensing consideration. Past convictions of dishonest may remain relevant in considering licensing despite the passage of the rehabililalion period. Disclosure after rehabilitation period is reasonable benefils to community outweigh cOSIs to applicants of disclosure. Applicants may mitigate against conviction which may show \he offence of long ago should nOI adversely affecI a licence application. Probability of public conlact is very high and may involve critical situations. Applicant looses the benefit of statutory obligation in Cl{RO) Act 10 only repon convictions in past 510 years. It may be difficult to justify maintaining unlimited statutory disclosure for applicants in every circum;tance. NB: JAG would like to be consulted fur1her on this issue. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 27 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act /993 and the Security Providers Regulation /995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Benefits/Status Quo Requirement is very reasonable. Secunty IS based on trust The chance of a person with a criminal history reolTending (particularly dishonesLy olTences) may be considered unacceptable 10 lhe community in general Requirement IS reasonable; SP perform commumtyl prh'ate policing role and commuity expectations and Govl priorities require appropriate screening of applicants; rea,onable Lo suggestions benefits to communily far outweigh COSIS LO applicants. Requirement is reasonable - all criminal hisLory should be disclosed - shows lifestyle paltems of applicants. Benefits outweigh costs; applicant does not incur cosL unless they have interstate historv. Requirement 10 disclose older criminal history is reasonable - previous history, regardless of expiraLion of rehabiiJ tallon period can indicaLe patterns of behaviour lhaL would be unacceptable in a person carrying out resoonsibilities of licensed SP. Comments The communiLY in general and those paying for security services must have a level of lrust in lhe industry lhaL providers will not compromise lheir premises or business. e. Qualifications (i) Security Orlicers and Crond Conlrollers (DPIl) Industry People are still using the VETEC logo, saying it is VETEC approved course. It was terminated over 12 monlhs ago; lhis occurs wilh people who do the Weapons Act Safety course. DETIR advise lhey are not permitted 10 use lhe lerm VETEC. Many training schemes exisl. If persons were able choose olher training schemes, assessment of credit value of prior courses should be reviewed on case by case basis and accreditalion should be at CEO discretion. 10 Training to appropriate level is essential if industry is 10 mamtain and improve standards. PRS98 is acceptable at this stage, bUL trends should be identified and training a,.kqualely renect these changes. Suggeslion: Exemption Lo for current officers should be remOved. Supervisors/managers do nOl complete training managers should have Diploma in Securily ManagemenL or equivalent lertiary qualification. If training 1he bottom need to lnlin lhe top. Standard should be increased where lhere are deticiencies. certainly no reduction Training should be a criteria. Safely of community outweighs individual requiremenLs. New Package has addressed problem of poorly trained officer.;, but nOl training of supervisors/manager.;, Applicanls should nol be able to choose olher trainingall participants should be equally trained to required l~v~l ofcompetency. Exemptions do nolhing to improve industry and inhibits its polenlial, lic~nsed personnel should All undertake required certificate. Level of certificate should appear on licence. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 28 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act /993 and the Security Providers Regulation /995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Benefits/Status Quo Training should be a criteria. Requirements are appropriate - Cert LcvellJ of PRS98 is appropriate at present. National package has advantages - certificate is recognised in all slates. Applicants should not be able to choose other !raining schemes - Qld has highest requirements for enlly level training which should be continued. Training is an important criteria licensing - generally large number of unqualified SPs for employers to choose from. Comments PRS98 is being reViewed to better structure advancement - CLII will slill be the competent officer level and should remain.z LillIe margin for in-house training putting pressure on employers to emplo} inferior staff. Persons obtaining licence believe they are qualified for employment. but seldom are - they tend to complete lowest cost course, encournging RTOs to conduct 4-6 week courses within 2 weeks. Suggestion: Courses should include ethics. professionalism and etiquetle; SOs could be required to reach Cert 1II within certain lime frame (12 mthsl to ensure ongoing educalion for efficient/effective SOS for benefit of public. Training should be a criteria. New Certificate courses are an appropriate entry level for induslly and as industry grows so should level of training. SPs should not choose thetr own training - we need to maintain uniformity. Training should be a crileria and current training is appropriate and satisfactory. Give SP basic outline of responsibilities in accordance with respective legal requirements. Lack of skilled/experience SP has been recognised as a lhreat to many firms. Some firms adVIse they would seIecI one appropriatc person only from up to 200 applicants. It is important that courses are conducted to ensure applicant is competent to Certificate II which requires RTOs carry out responsibility of ensuring course duration is adequate to meet qualification level of competence. Remuneration should be depending on qualification obtained and skills. knowledge and role in workplace grading would encourage beller work practices and professionalism; currently SOs remuneration is sometimes questionable as to whether it filS within award. Tl1lineeships are an option as long as strict control of trainers nre kept and persons training the trainers are capable of passing on sufficient information. SPs can advance from basic course 10 meel industry needs. Units of Competency are available to Advanced Diploma of Risk Management. Entry level training needs to be expanded in Queensland to ensure minimum slandards of competency and knowledge of legal and ethical reQuirements. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 29 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Strong belief that training for some areas is clearly inadequate ego No specific training for close personal protection or proper conlTol and conduct of covert operations. Persons conducting covert fraud investigations are oflen subjecl to no regulation other than the Criminal Code even though Police required 10 conduct same investigation would be subject 10 many restrictions rellardinll: operation and ethical conduct. Applicanls should nol be able to choose other ITaining schemes - they may not ensure officer is competent to do duties. Benefits/Status Quo Adequate training must remain one of the criteria. Comments Training should be maintained for each licence category. Requirements should be higher for airport SO given more complicated equipment used and increased security In the wake of the events of Seotember 200 I . Courses should be increased nol shortened; apprenticeships; TAFE should be the only place to training; private companies are only interested In pumping anyone ihrough to make money and everyone Dasses. Not appropriate - not all to national standard no issued by RTO: all training organisations should comply with national standard and training 10 workplace competency level, not just lake money and run and forger aoout students; should be trained by RTDs and increased to Cert IV and preferably Advanced Diploma of Risk Management (covers all units for Invesrigations including eert IV) with all courses and assessments approved by ITAB prior to commencement. In house training is e;1;pensive and low profit margins put restraints on capital available but are the vehicle for delivery of our product and demand our most fervent allention. Option of applicant choosing other training is not relevant for entry into SP industrv. Consumers Go,·ernmenl In relation to applicanlS choosing other training schemes - choosing alterative schemes would be difficult given the national package promoles national consistency, mutual recognilion Lo the hcensing outcome. It IS unlikely that introduction ofaltemalive course selection would receive industry support Training should be a criterion. Training should be a criterion. Training should be a criterion and current requirements are appropriate - not necessary to increase or decrease minimum skills as they apply to initial applicants. Firms muSI accepl responsibility and bear costs of their own stafT development as do all other business organisations. Training providers are registered under the Australian Quality Training Framework (AQTF) providing qualily and inlegrity to outcomes. The National Training package has been endorsed by industry and all states/territories, which replaces or is replacing all other curriculum based courses. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 30 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Suggestion: Training should be increased or varied as National Training Package changes. Applicants should be able to choose other training proViders. as long as they are equivalent or higher Ihan the NatIonal Package i.e. a detective training course with a Police Service. Benefits/Status Quo Enables appropriate service delivery. Training is part of endor.;«! National Training Package. Comments Suggestion: Training in Emergency Procedures such as eVBcuation should be mandatory. Applicants should have the choice of attending a privat~ s~curity company, TAFE or Open Learning. All courses shou ld cover the lIlIining certified by the National Trainim! Authority. Training should be a criterion. Current training requirements :lte adequate for base level, but may need to be increased if/when responsibilities in~rease. Training sbould be a criterion. [t is appropriate because it is nationally recognised to a more advanced level than previous. ,,,suiting in better trained operntives. more profeSSIonal industry wbich meets community elCpectations and provtd", a safer community. Benefits for community, industry and Govt outweigh costs to industry and applicants for licences. Trainmg should be criteria. Training process can and is being abused by some induslry members who treat is as a money making elCercise. Recourse are needed at DET to enable proper auditmg of training operators. Industry thinks training process is a joke. NOTE: anecdotal evidence suggests tbat some certificates are obtained at a pub over a beer - pay your money and Itet the certificate. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 31 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Despile LL support for adequale training, the issue of access 10 training in remole areas should be addressed. Benefits/Status Quo Adequate training is essential; LL supports introduction of national package, however, merely having package is not sufficient 01 ensure robust and sufficient training; Comments Qualily of training is depending on individual lraining many experlenc~s ex-police and SOs are delivering training with poor training skills and techniques, despite practical experience; individual trainer.; should be appr"v~d or endorsed and periodically monitored to ensure standards are maintained. Suggestion: individual trainer.; rather than organisallons should be endorsed as quality of delivery can vary /Tom trainer to trainer. Suggestion: reftesher Inlining l to ensure continuing compliance and recency of information) should be prerequisite for licence renewal, should three year renewals nroceed. (iI) Private In,'esligators (DPI3) Indust!")· PRS98 does nol cover PI "ery \\Iell and not accepted by 0 IT when adopted for SO/Ce. Costs: selling up temporary course for Pis would be excessive for trainer - beller to wait for revised PRS98. PIs completing PRSIR could use course in olher states, would not be accepled under mutual recognition in Qld - they would have to do PRS98 to be recognised. Compatible Nalional standard is a postl!..e slep. slandards of expertise and ethics is vital. National st~ndard provides level playing field where members can reasonably expecl industry member.; to be competent, professional and aCl within the same guidelines. This is a move toward reducing the rogue element from Ihe eQuation. Currenl course for PIs as approved by CEO continue until revised versIOn of PRS911 is released. PRS98 is being reveiwed. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 32 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Security Providers Regulation 1995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Lack of qualification in PI area; lack of suitably qualified PIs; course ouLline does not prepare for employment or to safely enter industrY. Actions of incompetent (under 2 years) Pis can be damaging to lives of others and do not provide information client has paid for (information they do nOI get is crucial); client does not know what information is available; inexperience or underqualificd PIs may be bias in reporting to cover inadeq uacics resulting in a genuine insurance claim being delayed or even denied. Suggestion: PIs complete Certificate III level or at least Certificate 1I for licensing requirements, wilh Cert III within set timeftame. Rationale: Pis enter field as a career. rather than other so/ees. Costs of moving to national package include exira cost to applicant (which would be accepted, as most prefer to participate in a course that assists for job readiness. Benefits/Status Quo Current course is an overview of PI role and as such is reasonable. Benefits: to employee as they can source qualified personnel; to applicant who is more likely to gain employment; to clients who are more likely to receive factual, precise informauon packages. Comments Pis require 2 years industry experience before competenl investigator who obtains licence is far from qualified in dealing with lives having rc,ponsibility of and confidentiality and ability to report facl ralher than assumption or COJlj~cture. - Training should include elhics. pro fessionalism and etiquette. There is a belief that ex-police require little or no training as Pis - this is not the case which most police specialising in policing and criminal law; there are aspects of civil investigation thai police do not have experience or training to competently perfonn. National training package is divided into 1\\'0 sireams. surveillance and factual - licensing should reflect these qualifications. issuing two separate licenses (or one for bothl. All Queensland registered training organisations (RTOs) exclusively deliver National Training the Packalle. Training is sufficient - it encompasses legal and procedural requirements. National Training Package would make training uniform it all states. easier 10 mutually recognise tnterstate operators and compelency will he easier to identify. National package does not require Pis comply with legal and procedural requirements as it underpins knowledge; this is not satisfactorY; PIs must understand the law Cosl should be irrelevant EnlrY level training needs to be expanded in Queensland to ensure minimum standards of compelency and knowledge of legal and ethical requirements. All mandatorY training should be conducled within normal hours at cost of firm; study leave should be readily available for licensees to increase Iheir occupation related skill base. Anecdotal evidence suggests some 10 companies require officers complete training out of work hours at their own cosl - this denotes a verY low commitment from companies to the proper education and training of employees Training is sufficient. Public Benefit Test Report - Appendix B Page 33 National Competition Policy Review of the Security Providers Act /993 and the Security Providers Regulation /995 Issue Group Costs/Suggested change Nil cOSIS for PI until seeking qual . $350 Recognition of Prior Learnmg, or $2·3.00 for course; Cost to mining organisations nOI prepared to move with limes and become RTO's and deliver nallOnally recognised training; delivery of other training .s an impediment to students undertaking learning with non-RTOs; Benefits/Status Quo National training package is only alternative to Pis at Cert IV or Advanced Dip of Risk Management level; employers benefit most by getting PIs who can complete work 10 required standard; saves fmn training time; enables student 10 enter industry at maximum earning capaclly; graduates can competent Iv complete botch surveillance and factual investigation work. plus manager affairs as a sub