Possibly the toughest Security legislation in the world!

[K-9 Aussie Member Find all posts View Profile Close K-9 Aussie]

I've often seen the topic debated on here, in regards to the licencing of security personnel in the USA.

I know I've also had many members comment on how stringent the legislation for security officers here in New South Wales (NSW) Australia is.

On the 1st of September, 2007 sweeping new changes came into the NSW Security Industry, making it even harder and looks like finally weeding out the ratbags.

To become a security officer in NSW, you first needed to pass a criminal history check, and you couldn't have any criminal records at all. If you passed that, you were then allowed to complete a special security course. Once you passed that, you then applied to the NSW Security Industry Registry (SIR) to become a security officer. You then needed to undergo another criminal history check, plus then have your fingerprints taken. Once you passed that you then become a security officer.

With the NEW changes in our industry, it really now seems that NSW is one, if not the toughest place in the world to obtain a security licence.

Please see the link below and let me know what you think

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/about_u...september_2007

Whilst sitting back enjoying a quiet night after working the last several days in Sydney at the mess they called "APEC 2007", I can see why they have bought in new changes. The security operation down here at APEC was nothing short of a military operation.

[N. A. Corbier Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close N. A. Corbier]

I don't see how this is much different than the US, other than they just decided to license anything to do with security, including owners and salesmen.

Can you further elaborate? Two background checks instead of one doesn't really increase security of the process. You can have idiots without criminal records, as well as owners without criminal records who are only out to make a buck.

[Taktiq Member Find all posts View Profile Close Taktiq]

I don't see how this is much different than the US, other than they just decided to license anything to do with security, including owners and salesmen.

Can you further elaborate? Two background checks instead of one doesn't really increase security of the process. You can have idiots without criminal records, as well as owners without criminal records who are only out to make a buck.

I agree, even with the stringent background checks to become an LEO, you still have some idiots who slip through the cracks. Two BG checks wouldn't really do much more in the security field IMO.

[hrdickinson Member Find all posts View Profile Close hrdickinson]

I don't see how this is much different than the US, other than they just decided to license anything to do with security, including owners and salesmen.

The current law in Texas requires owners and salespeople to be licensed now.

[flashlightcop509 Member Find all posts View Profile Close flashlightcop509]

dude, my apologies, but...

Y'all can keep NSW or wherever.... The word "Strict" must be written in stone down there far as how an SO can respond....

[Ron Jessee Member Find all posts View Profile Close Ron Jessee]

That's kind of the reason Larger LEO departments are having trouble hiring, they almost always have a credit check. And how many people in the US are left that have decent credit.

[N. A. Corbier Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close N. A. Corbier]

That's kind of the reason Larger LEO departments are having trouble hiring, they almost always have a credit check. And how many people in the US are left that have decent credit.

18 year olds who just got out of high school.

[Maelstrom Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Maelstrom]

I don't see how this is much different than the US, other than they just decided to license anything to do with security, including owners and salesmen.

By regulation the Governing bodies have further control over standards within the industry (it is of course a revenue raising opportunity)

Can you further elaborate? Two background checks instead of one doesn't really increase security of the process. You can have idiots without criminal records, as well as owners without criminal records who are only out to make a buck.

Anyone who understands BG checks at all knows their only good for the day they were processed, NSW sounds similar in it's licensing regulations to Victoria, as here additional to a police BGC you need...

* 2 professional references,
* 2 character referee's,
* sufficient personal proof of identification,
* appropriate training provided by regulated/accredited training organisations,
* final approval from your RTO (that you were sufficiently competent & of good moral fibre/attitude)

The second Police BGC kicks in around the time you get assigned to a site (at least here anyway), this process eliminates people who've perhaps been charged with an offence since qualifying as an SO

I'm not 100% certain about credit checks, but it's most likely part of the hiring process by employers, after having gone through this process that it's what I'd call 'stringent' but if you would detail/outline the regulations & safeguards put in place to monitor & filter SO's working (or seeking work) within the USA, it'd be most informative & appreciated

[Security Mike Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Security Mike]

Yeah I dont see how NSW is any different then Florida. Im pretty sure when I was finger printed my prints were sent to the FBI for a background check and Im sure they did a criminal history check as well. That was just for the state to get the license.

Then when you apply to a decent company, they will also do there own thorough background check which includes; personal references, work history, driving record, and sometimes a credit check.

[N. A. Corbier Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close N. A. Corbier]

Your employer must put you with a training officer, then report to the licensing agency if you performed well to get your license in NSW?

[K-9 Aussie Member Find all posts View Profile Close K-9 Aussie]

I don't see how this is much different than the US, other than they just decided to license anything to do with security, including owners and salesmen.

Can you further elaborate? Two background checks instead of one doesn't really increase security of the process. You can have idiots without criminal records, as well as owners without criminal records who are only out to make a buck.

Sorry I should have posted all the info up to state the case instead of shortcuts

Ok now here in NSW, this is the process for a new applicant (never been in the NSW security industry) to become a security officer:-

1.) Pass a criminal history check, wit no criminal record.
2.) Pass the NSW Commissioner of Police approved course to obtain a certifcate I in security
3.) Pass another criminal histroy check again
4.) Be fiingerprinted and pass
5.) Be approved by the NSW Security Industry Registry (SIR), which includes character referrences, residential status, qualifications, first-aid.
6.) You are then granted either a 1A,B,C,D,E,F or G PROVISIONAL licence depending on the course/s you completed.
7.) You then must work with another security officer of the same class of licence as you for 1yr and you must be in the direct line of sight of the supervising officer at all times
8.) You must be work place assessed 4 times during the first year by a NSW Commissioner of Police Registered Training Organisation (RTO)
9.) Your supervisor must not only be responsible for you, but also fill out specific performance reports on you.
10.) Once you have done all 9 points above and successfully passed you will be granted a certificate II in security operations and then are granted an unrestricted security licence.

NEW LICENCE CLASSES FOR MANPOWER

Previously in NSW, there were only class 1A (Static guard incl armed), 1B (Bodyguard), 1C (Crowd Control/Bouncer)

Now there is new categories which are:-
1A:- Unarmed Guard (62hr course)
1B:- Body Guard (102hr course)
1C:- Crowd Control/Bouncer (77hr course)
1D:- Dog Handler (NEW) (119hr course)
1E:- Monitoring Centre Operator (NEW) (40hr course)
1F:- Armed Guard (NEW) (104hr course)
1G:- Loss Prevention (NEW) (62hr course)

If a security officer has held a Class 1A,B,C licence previously and they apply for one of the new classes (1D,E,F,G) then they don't need to go onto a "PROVISIONAL" licence for that subclass.

New security officers to the industry have the following supervision requirements:-

the supervisor must be on the
same premises as the Provisional
licensee (P1C and P1D*)
• the Provisional licensee must,
as far as practicable, be in the
supervisor’s line of sight (P1C,
P1D* and P1F)
• the supervisor must be able to
immediately provide assistance
to the Provisional licensee (P1C,
P1D* and P1F)
• there must be no more than three
Provisional licensees per
supervisor (P1C)
• there must be no more than one
Provisional licensee per supervisor
(P1D* and P1F)
• the supervisor must hold a relevant
firearms licence (P1F).
* only applies to P1D licensees during the first
three months of employment.


MASTER LICENCE HOLDERS (Business owners)

Now must keep the following document/s which can be inspected by the NSW Police, and authorised
persons may inspect, copy, or require a Master licensee
to produce, all relevant records, including those required
to be kept by other regulators such as the Office of State
Revenue, the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission and the Australian Taxation Office. The NSW
Police Force may notify these other regulators of any
relevant issues that are identified in an audit of a Master
licensee’s records.

• Employees and Services Register, which:
- records details of all licence holders employed
by the Master licensee
- identifies the supervisor of each employee who
holds a Provisional licence
- includes the required written instructions,
documented work routines and personal
progress checks for Provisional licensed
employees (see Fact Sheet 2)
- records details of every occasion on which the
Master licensee is engaged to provide security
services, including each mobile patrol visit.
• Incident Register (if Master licensee employs
Provisional or Class 1 licence holders), which
records the details of incidents that occur while the
Master licensee’s employees are conducting security
activities and that involve:
- forceable physical contact with, or physical
restraint of, a member of the public
- ejection of a member of the public from a
location
- an attack on a person by an employee’s dog
- the removal of an employee’s firearm from its
holster (unless for unloading or maintenance
purposes)
- the discharge of an employee’s firearm.
If an incident involves a Provisional licensee, the
name of that employee's superviosr must also be recorded.


All current licenced security officers will need to be RPL'd (Recognition of Prior Learning assessed) too in the next 1yr to enable them to continue employment in the industry.

At this present moment in time, the only people that can purchase "prohibitted weapons" in NSW ie baton and handcuffs are actual Master Licence holders, however class 1A,B,C,D,E,F,G, licence holders after completing their actual commissioner of police approved course in batons and handcuffs are still fine to posses and use them. It appears we will be going down the USA route where employers (Master Licence holders) will actually give out batons and handcuffs if they see fit for their staff to possess and use them in the course of their employment only.

[K-9 Aussie Member Find all posts View Profile Close K-9 Aussie]

Your employer must put you with a training officer, then report to the licensing agency if you performed well to get your license in NSW?

Yes, your close on the money there.

What is to happen is that any security officer already having their security licence before the 01/09/2007 can now be the "training officer" as you put it (we have called it the supervising officer), for any security officer whom obtains their security licence after the 01/09/2007.

The "supervising officer" must make sure of the following:-

• the supervisor must be on the
same premises as the Provisional
licensee (P1C and P1D*)
• the Provisional licensee must,
as far as practicable, be in the
supervisor’s line of sight (P1C,
P1D* and P1F)
• the supervisor must be able to
immediately provide assistance
to the Provisional licensee (P1C,
P1D* and P1F)
• there must be no more than three
Provisional licensees per
supervisor (P1C)
• there must be no more than one
Provisional licensee per supervisor
(P1D* and P1F)
• the supervisor must hold a relevant
firearms licence (P1F).
* only applies to P1D licensees during the first
three months of employment.


Also in the 1yr period of the PROVISIONAL security officer gaining their security licence, they must be workplaced assessed by an approved RTO no less than 4 times too.

[Maelstrom Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Maelstrom]

Certainly is stringent regulation there K9, in your opinion is this partly a result of the brawl at the Star Casino (and ensuing aftermath), along with similar incidents in NSW involving security/event staff?

[K-9 Aussie Member Find all posts View Profile Close K-9 Aussie]

Certainly is stringent regulation there K9, in your opinion is this partly a result of the brawl at the Star Casino (and ensuing aftermath), along with similar incidents in NSW involving security/event staff?

I can't answer that question accurately, however as disgraceful as that incident was at the Casino I'm sure it was part of the reason yes. I was appauled when I was shown the whole footage of the incident. From the "adjust the tie" incident, right through to the actual physical detainment of the offender and especially the use of the tie around his neck made me sick and all involved did deserve to face the multitude of charges they did. There is no place in the industry for people like that.

From information I have been given from an inside high serving person, the reason for the new changes came about due to the London bombings. What happened with the London bombings was that when these incidents occur, we, that being security officers are supposed to step-up basically and assit Police and other law enforcement authorities, and in London this failed terribly.

Former NSW Police Minister Carl Scully (who despised security officers) decided after a meeting with former NSW Police Commissioner Mr. Ken Moroney that they didn't want that situation happening here so they decided to make sweeping new changes, not to mention incidents such as guards assaulting members of the public, rouge companies leaving new guards unsupervised and situations rather dangerous with no support or back-up,dodgy guards, guards that only worked weekends s a second job and just the general situation with the massive growth of security post 9/11. The whole idea behind this is to make the industry more accountable and professional and weed out the bad elements, and it does seem they are going to work (fingers crossed)

In my opinion, the whole problem still is, which hasn't been addressed is the fact not everyone is suited to a career in security. The Police and military have specific recruitment processes, and lets face it these days there is only a very fine line between what Police do and security do and both sides need each other to perform their respective jobs correctly and professionally. They still need in my opinion pych test etc, with other tests too.

[Maelstrom Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Maelstrom]

It's incidents at Star Casino & similar events in Victorian Night Clubs that brought about changes in defensive tactics instruction in Victoria, moving away from aggressive defensive posturing (ie. bladed stance) for something that's perceived as 'less threatening' by the public & looks great on CCTV (for when the proverbial eventually hits the fan)

The best move I've seen in the brief time I've spent in this industry, has been the weeding out of undesirables (with police records) & thugs with an aggressive attitude (attitude assessment during mandatory Cert upgrade), though not without problems we appear to be heading in the right direction