Page 4308 - Week 10 - Thursday, 22 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The national peak body for the security industry, the Australian Security Industry Association Ltd, supports the bill. In a letter the association sent to me, it considers that the bill is “an important step in the right direction”.
Finally, I note from the attorney’s presentation speech that the government allocated $402,000 in the 2011-12 budget to fund the new scheme, including the purchase of fingerprinting machinery and engaging staff to administer the scheme.
This bill, much like the Unit Titles (Management) Bill we will be debating later today, came from a background of attempted secrecy, a lack of consultation and ACT Labor’s generally bulldozer approach to getting its regulations through. Had due and proper process been followed in the first place, properly engaging stakeholders instead of trying to get things through the back door, we might have had a better result a year ago. This government continues to be a slow learner. That said, given the industry support for this bill, we will be supporting it at this stage.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.58): The Greens will be supporting this bill. The bill focuses on the information that can be taken into account in deciding whether to grant a licence to work in the private security industry. That decision to grant a licence is an important one because, once issued, a licence authorises the applicant to go out and work in positions of trust in the industry. Some of the licensed activities include guarding cash in transit with a firearm, guarding property with a dog, and installing security equipment such as money safes and security windows.
Obviously, with these matters in mind, it is important to ensure that security workers undertaking these kinds of activities are trustworthy and reliable people. As the legislation currently stands, the Commissioner for Fair Trading is required to determine whether it is in the public interest to grant the licence, and in making that determination the commissioner is provided with a criminal history of the applicant.
For some licence types the commissioner is also empowered to inquire into close personal associates of the applicant and the financial or other influence they may hold over the applicant. This is a broad-ranging power which reflects the importance that is placed on ensuring that people in the security industry are unable to be influenced by criminal associates. Put simply, the existing legislation allows the commissioner to ensure that the guard is not acting as a so-called “cleanskin”, which is someone without a criminal history who is working on the instruction of a criminal organisation.
What the bill today will do is extend the range of information that the commissioner can take into account in ensuring that the applicant is an appropriate person to become licensed. The bill will allow the Chief Police Officer to provide the commissioner with criminal intelligence if police believe it is relevant to the application.
The Greens believe this is a sensible additional piece of information that is relevant to the public interest test. To put it another way, it could potentially not be in the public interest for the police to be prevented from forwarding on information about close personal associates that shows that the applicant is closely aligned with a criminal organisation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video