SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENTS (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 February 2013.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:46): I rise to speak on this bill. This bill was tabled a few weeks ago by the Attorney-General and officers from the Attorney-General's Department from memory—there may have been a representative from Consumer and Business Services—or representatives of the government provided a briefing a week or two ago in order for us to have some further understanding of the history of this bill. I thank the advisers in that regard.

The genesis of the reform in this area arises from an agreement of the Council of Australian Governments on 3 July 2008 when it agreed to adopt a nationally consistent approach to the regulation of the private security industry. There has not really been any explanation as to why we are dealing with this matter five years down the track but, nevertheless, the reform purports to do a number of things.

I should place on record what industry we are talking about and, in particular, what the private security industry actually does. Both individuals and businesses provide guarding and technical security services and, as members will be aware, that includes protecting property, buildings, factories and the like, and providing security at various events and venues. Some specialty services are also provided for individual, close, personal protection and escorts and, of course, protecting valuable items when in transit.

With the development of very significant public events in this state, this is particularly important. We have not just concerts and events and suchlike but we have major state events, including car races and bike races—some of which we are enjoying during this month of March—where the security industry provides those services. However, there are also many areas of protection required when cash is being transferred from one premises to another, particularly banks and the like, and the protection of property whether it is valuable jewellery or a substantial building. I do not think we have any protection of property for valuable crops anymore because I think tobacco is no longer grown in Australia, but I imagine security industries personnel were very active in that, most and last in Victoria, when that was kept under guard.

The growing demand that has contributed to the increased competition and cost cutting has been identified by the government, and possibly other members who attended the COAG meeting, as resulting in some problems, particularly with the standard of training of personnel and some complaint of poor service delivery. We are not privy to the detail of that, but it is not unrealistic to expect that, in a competitive industry, there needs to be some check on the standards that are applied. This is not just a question of the training of personnel to undertake the surveillance and guarding work but it also needs to be understood that sometimes the personnel are utilising firearms or trained protective dogs, for example, and therefore the standard of training needs to be quite high.

The areas of licensable activities include general guarding, crowd or venue control, guarding with a dog, guarding with a firearm, monitoring centre operations, body guarding and training. There are also to be areas of reform in the provision of minimal criminal exclusions in determining a person's suitability to hold a security licence and also minimum standards for identification and probity checks. Additionally, there is to be agreed competency and skills requirements and the introduction of provisional and temporary licences.

My understanding is that, in South Australia, we already have quite a robust system of both probity standards and training obligations, which means that we are probably the least deserving of attention in being swept up into a federal system. However, consistent with what seems to be almost uniform practice now at these COAG meetings, some bright spark around the table identifies that the panacea of improvement rests in harmonious uniform legislation around the country and everyone seems to dust their hands off, go home and then, some years later, implement it.

We on this side of the house are not convinced that that is necessarily the answer, especially as we have such a good track record in South Australia, but there seem to be two areas in which there will be some improvement in the strengthening of the applicability of this new national system. The first is that the person or institution that is to train the security personnel also needs to be registered or licensed, which means that each of those institutions has to be accredited as such and the trainers then have licences.

So, expanding the fit and proper person rules to those who are in the training world is probably of benefit. The COAG meeting, in any event, agreed that that would be appropriate. Those on this side of the house accept that expansion of application, and that will also include directors of a body corporate that holds a licence under the bill.

The other areas in which there is some expansion are the offences that would disqualify someone from holding a licence. In South Australia, under our existing law, there are already six offences identified which would disqualify someone from holding a licence, but signing up to this national scheme would add two other additional offences, and they are dishonesty offences and terrorism offences.

The other aspect that is expanded here but which I place in a similar category is that, apart from expanding the types of offences, it will also reform the current position to ensure that disqualification would be effective if that person who either had the licence or sought to have one were found guilty of an offence even if that conviction were not recorded. Some members in this house would be aware that it is not an uncommon practice for there to be a finding in a court that someone has been found to have committed an offence, but for reasons which are allowed under our law the magistrate or judge can, in all of the circumstances presented to them, agree not to record a conviction.

That application is often made by the offender or their representative sometimes to give consideration to what might be a first offence, but sometimes it is also to ensure that the offender is not inflicted with too strict a penalty, or almost like a double penalty, if it were in some way to adversely affect their capacity to continue to be employed. That is a discretion that is left usually with the judge or magistrate. However, for the purposes of someone who wanted to obtain or retain a licence as a security agent, that finding would still be sufficient to disqualify them, and that is something that the opposition agrees to support.

Apart from the training personnel and agencies having to be accredited and their trainers licensed, and apart from the expansion of offences, there is also one further aspect which is currently not provided for in South Australia, and that is the application of a provisional licence.

COAG took the view that it was reasonable in certain circumstances for provisional licences to be issued subject to the completion of training, which I assume to be in some way conditional upon that provisional licence being allocated. In other words, there would be a process upon which someone could seek a licence for a short time, presumably to be able to cover a certain event, activity or function that would be over a short time and for which extra security may be needed. Perhaps the most common would be a sporting or some cultural event, concert or something of the like, but I could think of other situations, like the visit of a member of the Royal Family, for example, where extra security might be required.

As members would know, when we have special visitors such as the Queen visit South Australia, we welcome a rather large entourage of people to provide security services who are no doubt personally trained in England. However, it is important that we supplement that to provide for not just the security of the royal entourage but also the security of others who might come into the presence of a royal visitor in those circumstances.

So, it is not uncommon and it would not be unreasonable in these situations for there to be a number of things. Firstly, a mutual recognition of those who might come across the border to supplement that service in South Australia for a special event and, secondly, for those who it would be unreasonable to expect to undertake a full application process for a full licence for an annual period. Accordingly, that is allowed.

It does seem a little inconsistent with the concept that there needs to be a high standard for those who are allowed into the industry and a high level of training to then say, on the other hand, 'Well, it's not so significant that we will allow short-term applications for these provisional licences.' I think if the conditions imposed by COAG, which is that there be a completion of training, are carried out, then that would seem, on the face of it, to be acceptable.

I note that the consultation on the draft bill was undertaken, I am advised, with a number of training providers in addition to Business SA and the National Security Association SA branch. I understand there are a number of other persons who are directly involved in this industry who were consulted, and we are advised that there had been an indication that these amendments are in line with their views. To the best of my knowledge, there had not been any relevant stakeholders who had ultimately expressed any disapproval of the proposal.

As I say, that is probably because South Australia was in the enviable position of already having very robust security and investigation agent regulations, and I am pleased that that has been the case. It gives recognition to the fact that our current legislation has in fact been well developed. The Security and Investigations Act was passed in 1995. For those who were in the parliament at that stage, I commend them for having one of the more advanced and effective regimes in this area. I will not be seeking to go into committee.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:05): I too rise to speak to the Security and Investigation Agents (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2013. I note that this is a bill to amend the Security and Investigation Agents Act 1995. The background to this bill is that each state and territory government is responsible for the regulation of the private security industry within its own jurisdiction. As indicated by our lead speaker, the member for Bragg, the Council of Australian Governments agreed in July 2008 to accept a nationally consistent approach to the regulation of the private security industry to improve the probity, competence and skills of security personnel and the mobility of security licensees across jurisdictions.

Under the COAG proposal, COAG agreed that licensed activities include general guarding, crowd or venue control, operating with a dog, guarding with a firearm, monitoring centre operations, body guarding and security training. There was also general agreement to reform the minimum criminal exclusions in determining a person's suitability to hold a security licence, minimum standards for identification and probity checks, agreed competency and skills requirements, and obviously there was agreement to the introduction of provisional and temporary licences.

It is understood that the Labor government agreed in July 2008 to the COAG reforms and to regulating the industry, and this bill is being considered almost five years later and two years after the reforms were announced. It is also appropriate that the reforms will require that a person who personally provides security industry training must hold the appropriate security trainer's licence. There is also the expanded concept of a fit and proper person to hold a licence or be the director of a body corporate that holds a licence under the bill, and we on this side of the house certainly support that.

As the member for Bragg already indicated, under South Australia's existing scheme, South Australia already provides for six of the eight offences which COAG decided would disqualify someone from holding a licence. The additional offences are dishonesty offences and terrorism offences. It is also intended that a person will be disqualified from holding a licence even if they are found guilty of an offence and a conviction is not recorded. It is interesting to note that the Security Providers Association of Australia Ltd has indicated that the amendments are totally in line with the COAG reforms and that they are more than happy with the bill.

As was indicated earlier, security guards are used in a wide range of instances. They could be involved in protecting factories, workplaces and a whole range of premises that are looked after. I know a lot of car yards hire security personnel, whether they are on site or tour the vicinity looking after several yards. I am also aware of some that are hired privately. Even in the agriculture industry I have witnessed where people who are developing specialty crops, where they have a new seed of an exotic plant, will have a private security guard guarding their seed store to make sure that no-one gets hold of it. Also, we see that during March in this state, there are a lot of community events. Even last night, with the launch of the state logo, there were security personnel involved to keep us all in check. They do provide a valuable service across the community.

I have been involved in community events for many years and some of these have been rather large events with 1,000 or 1,200 people and the security personnel provide a very valuable service to those functions. Generally everything goes according to plan without too much trouble. The beauty of it is, though, that these people are in place in case there are any situations that come up.

Nationalising this legislation will make sure that these people can work across borders. With distances seeming to be able to be covered so much more quickly these days—such as, with flight—or people maybe living close to a border, they can work across borders under very similar legislation and they can be licensed as I see it under this national legislation to work in all the states of Australia, as the legislation is passed across the country.

There is a whole range of things that are put in place for these agents. The security agents may be required to undertake drug testing. There are all sorts of controls around whether they hold a firearms licence, and there can be a temporary suspension, a cancellation or a variation of a firearms licence while they are employed as a security agent. Obviously, the security agents, the industry trainers and the directors may be required to provide fingerprints and photographs so they can work in the service.

As I said, whether they are looking after premises or are involved in crowd control, I think all the security personnel do a great job, and sometimes unexpected things can happen. In the main, these people provide a very valuable service to the community to make sure that people who have a business have their goods looked after and secured and people who are out at a venue or a function can go out and enjoy the amenity of that event and go home safely. I commend the bill. I think it is a step forward with national legislation and I commend its smooth passage through the house.

Ms BETTISON (Ramsay) (16:13): I rise to speak in support of this bill. The private security industry plays a pivotal role in protecting both businesses and individuals across South Australia. For example, their guarding services include protection of property, infrastructure, events and venues, close personal protection and escort, and carriage and protection of valuable commodities.

In the midst of Mad March festivities, it is clear that high-quality security is crucial for people to be able to enjoy all the events on offer. Additionally, technical security services provide advice regarding hire or supply, installation and maintenance of electronic security alarm or surveillance systems.

In July 2008, the Council of Australian Governments decided to work towards a nationally consistent approach to the regulation of the private security industry. As a result, this government has agreed to adopt a set of reforms that are consistent with the COAG approach. That is where we have the introduction of this bill. The following reforms will be implemented:

introducing seven classifications harmonised across Australia of licensable activity. These are general guarding, crowd or venue control, guarding with a dog, guarding with a firearm, monitoring centre operations, body guarding and training;

implementing the agreed minimum list of disqualifying offences, most of which are already prescribed in South Australia. (I understand we have been a lead player in improvements in this industry.) These offences will be prescribed in the regulations;

requiring individual trainers to comply with the same probity requirements as members of the private security industry;

requiring a person who carries on a business of providing security industry training to be approved; and

providing for the issuing of temporary and provisional licences in future, with the number of applicants dependent on further consultation with SA Police and industry on temporary licences and timing of changes to operational and ICT systems.

These reforms are important for the improvement of two areas of the private security industry: first, the probity, competence and skills of security personnel; and, secondly, the mobility of security industry licensees across jurisdictions. This bill will help strengthen the regulation and standard of the private security industry and, potentially, help foster safer South Australian communities. I commend the bill to the house.

Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens) (16:16): I, too, rise in support of this bill. In a move to improve the private security industry, the Council of Australian Governments agreed to adopt a nationally consistent approach to the regulation of the industry on 3 July 2008. This type of regulation is important, as demand for security services has been steadily increasing since the mid-1980s, which is attributed to an increased perception of threats to security. This government is committed to keeping South Australians safe in whatever way we can, and this bill plays a part in that.

The growing demand for security services has contributed to increased competition and cost cutting, leading to problems such as inadequate training, poor service delivery and a lack of consumer confidence. The bill is a response to the concerns of the industry. The agreed reforms include:

a list of seven activities;

minimum criminal exclusions in determining a person's suitability to hold a security licence (which, obviously, is exceptionally important);

minimum standards for identification and probity checks;

agreed competency and skills requirements; and

introduction of provisional and temporary licences.

While South Australia already covers most aspects of these reforms, the implementation of this bill will create clarity and further understanding for both the industry and the community, particularly about the activities performed by licensed security agents. Further to these reforms, the bill will implement three reforms relating to the guarding and technical sectors of the security industry, and these are:

a requirement that a person who personally provides security industry training must hold an appropriate security industry trainer's licence;

a requirement that a person must not carry on a business of providing security industry training unless the person has been approved by the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs; and

probity requirements (that is, fingerprinting and criminal history checks) for the security training sector to the same standard as those imposed on security agents.

The quality of training organisations and trainers within the private security industry is essential to see industry-wide improvements. It is these training requirements and probity checks that will strengthen the regulations of this industry, which is important for increased public confidence and safety for all South Australians. I commend this bill to members.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (16:19): I thank all of those who have contributed to the debate on this matter. I think there is one little thing which was possibly raised by the member for Bragg in the context of her remarks that I should possibly briefly address. I understand that she was puzzled about the question of the delay between the COAG decision and the introduction of the bill, and I just wanted to give this bit of information to the house in relation to that matter.

South Australia already meets many of the agreed elements of the reforms. Given that the vast majority of the agreed licensing requirements, such as fingerprinting, disqualifying offences, national and local criminal history checks and such like, are already in place in South Australia the extent of procedural changes required for South Australian businesses is considerably less than that for businesses in most other jurisdictions. Delays have also occurred, given the need to integrate the ICT changes necessary for the security reforms to work on alterations to CBS's IT licensing infrastructure. With those few remarks, I am done.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (16:21): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.