Mr WETTENHALL (14 March 2007) (4.31 pm): I rise to support the Security Providers Amendment Bill. There are three principal objectives of the bill: first, to tighten regulation of the security industry to ensure that only those persons of reputable character operate in the industry; second, that a higher degree of harmonisation or alignment exists in regulation of the industry in Queensland compared to other states and territories; and, third, to ensure that the Security Providers Act 1993 better reflects the diverse occupations in the security industry.

The bill will achieve these objectives by expanding the categories of licences to include previously unregulated providers of security services, including those who operate in industries where security work can be mixed with other duties. It will also strengthen the character and probity tests to weed undesirable elements out of the industry. The bill will require licensees to continue their professional development through ongoing training, increase the penalties for operating without a licence and for engaging unlicensed personnel and other changes to ensure the protection of community and property.

In September 2005 the Council of Australian Governments recognised that a national harmonised security industry has a key role to play in counter-terrorism activities. The COAG report recommended that there be uniform national character and probity checks and the identification of core security activities for licensing in all jurisdictions. The current Queensland act had left many security activities unregulated in comparison to other states and territories and the probity criteria under the current act was also less stringent than those in place in other states and territories, and this bill will address those deficiencies. A nationally consistent approach to licensing is important in an age when the national security industry has a role to play in counter-terrorism activities. Potentially, the security industry could play a key role in protecting critical infrastructure and responding to a terrorist incident. A national approach will stop people who are unfit from operating in this industry seeking refuge in Queensland.

The bill also provides for the introduction of a temporary permit regime for bodyguards, crowd controllers, security officers and security firms that are licensed in another state or territory to carry out certain functions for a particular event. This will allow private security officers to be deployed around the country at events which would otherwise be beyond the scope of the resources in any one state. The range of activities regulated by the 1993 act include crowd controllers, mobile and dog patrols, armed and unarmed guards, responding to alarms and private investigators. But the new act will ensure that the industry is protected from the unacceptable behaviour of security providers and that only persons of an acceptable character enter the industry and that operators possess basic levels of competency and industry participators behave according to community expectation.

The bill is necessary for a number of reasons, not least of which is the size of the security industry. As at 30 June 2006 there were 13,798 security officers and crowd controllers; 1,243 security officers, which was a 93 per cent increase from 2004-05; 892 security firms, a 68 per cent increase from 2004-05; 541 private investigators; and 145 crowd controllers. Overall, the industry represents a significant part of the crime prevention and law enforcement apparatus in Australia, with just over twice the number of security personnel to police. But as we have heard in the debate today, and as some members have brought forward from the experiences of their own constituents, concerns have been raised about the character of those who operate in the security industry. That is not to say that the vast majority of those who operate in the industry are not of good character and take their responsibilities seriously and comply with the existing provisions of the act and will comply with these tightened provisions. However, there are a couple of rotten eggs in the basket, and this bill is designed to weed those out. At the end of the day, the bad eggs tarnish all who are complying and striving to comply and be up to scratch in their responsibilities in this industry.

The Office of Fair Trading in a brief snapshot of checking between September and October 2006 found that 2½ per cent of criminal history checks revealed an adverse criminal history and that some licences administered revealed disqualifying offences. Between June 2005 and November 2006 the Office of Fair Trading checked 249 security provider businesses involving some 843 employees. Some 30 per cent of those checks resulted in investigations of businesses or individuals involved, and in some cases further legal action was required. That demonstrates the need for the provisions in this bill which will strengthen the character, probity and compliance activities in the industry. Some 80 complaints per year were received in connection with the security provider industry, with the majority relating to security system installation contracts and maintenance, and most of those were in the home security area. However, 15.2 per cent related to unlicensed security providers, 11.6 per cent related to the conduct of certain security providers and 6.4 per cent were for complaints of assault generally related to security officers at licensed venues in a crowd-controlling capacity. Certainly, some very high-profile examples have been mentioned in this debate-the tragic death of David Hookes being one of them. One of the objects of this bill is to ensure that those who are operating in the industry are of the utmost good character.

Why is it time to review the act? The current act has been in place for some 10 years. In that time the security industry in Queensland has changed markedly. Also, during that time there has been growing community concern about people being injured at nightclubs as a result of altercations between intoxicated persons and security providers. Currently, when considering whether an applicant for a licence is an appropriate person to hold a licence, the chief executive can consider the dealings in which the person has been involved which would show dishonesty, or lack of integrity, or using harassing tactics; whether the person associates with a criminal in a way that indicates an involvement in an unlawful activity; whether the person has taken advantage of the laws of debtors and bankruptcy; or whether the person has been convicted of an offence.

Additionally, a person is not considered to be an appropriate person to hold a licence if that person has been convicted of a disqualifying offence in Queensland or another jurisdiction in the past 10 years. Examples of those disqualifying offences are offences carrying a term of imprisonment of one year or more under the Weapons Act; offences under the Drugs Misuse Act carrying a term of imprisonment of one year or more; offences relating to breaches of the peace; offences relating to the administration of justice; offences committed against a public authority; offences against morality, homicide, suicide, the concealment of a birth, and endangering life or health; rape and sexual assaults; offences against liberty; stealing, burglary, receiving stolen property, impersonation, conspiracy and other fraudulent offences. There are also some offences under the Police Service Administration Act which are disqualifying offences. Currently, if the chief executive requests the Commissioner of Police to provide a criminal history for an applicant, unreported convictions are not permitted to be taken into account in assessing whether a person is appropriate to hold a licence.

This bill amends the act to now allow certain unrecorded convictions to be taken into account. The chief executive may also consider unrecorded findings of guilt in relation to disqualifying offences committed by the person in the previous five years that have not been quashed or set aside by a court if the offence indicates that the person is a risk to public safety or it would be contrary to the public interest to issue them a licence. Importantly, the criminal history will be required to show every charge against the person and a brief description of the manner of the offence giving rise to the unrecorded conviction or charge mentioned in the person's history. The chief executive can obtain a discretionary note to consider the nature of unrecorded convictions in the previous five years and their relevance to the person's capacity to perform the functions of a security provider. So the chief executive will retain that discretionary role.

These extra provisions are necessary, because the industry and community consultation undertaken in the development of this bill revealed that people with links to criminal activities are entering the security industry. Furthermore, intelligence has identified a growing problem of fraud occurring in cases where licence applicants have illegally changed their name to avoid revealing an existing criminal history.

Only yesterday in this House we debated legislation that creates the offence of identity fraud under the Criminal Code. The Queensland Police Service has found that approximately 10 per cent of licensees have come to their attention in the previous five years, either as a suspect or as a confirmed offender. Those findings by the Queensland Police Service leave us in no doubt of the need for these strengthened character and probity tests that are contained in the provisions of this bill.

Some additional changes to the bill include that licensees will be required to give the chief executive written notice of any changes in their particulars within seven days of being charged with an offence. That will include charges or convictions against the licensee for a disqualifying offence, unless giving such information prejudices or otherwise hinders an investigation, leads to the identification of an informant, or affects the safety of a police officer, complainant, or other person.

Clause 17 provides guidelines for the chief executive when considering information about a person's criminal history, including changes in criminal history or investigative information. Importantly, the use of that information is limited to a decision regarding the person's appropriateness to continue to hold a licence. There is also a requirement that that information be confidential and destroyed as soon as practical when it is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was given. Further grounds are given to suspend or cancel a licence or to refuse to renew a licence if the licensee has contravened the act or the code of practice for security providers.

Clause 28 inserts a section that provides for the issuing of temporary permits for a particular event. I mentioned that earlier. The licence categories will be expanded. The bill expands the security provider licence to license bodyguards separately from crowd controllers and introduce new licence categories for security advisers and security equipment installers to ensure that the licensing of security officers captures electronic surveillance operators, dog handlers and in-house security officers and to provide greater definition in the detail of crowd controllers and private investigators.

As the honourable minister remarked in her second reading speech, these provisions are needed to address a trend in the security industry where personnel and firms avoid coverage because of definitions under the act as they applied to persons or firms who mix security with other duties. Bodyguards, who will be licensed separately, will be defined as persons who, for reward, provide a personal protection service. A new licence category is created for a security adviser, being a person who, for reward, gives advice about security equipment, or security methods. Another new licence category has been added for a security equipment installer, namely, a person who, for reward, installs, repairs, services or maintains security equipment.

The definition of ‘security officer' has also been expanded to include a person who, for reward, watches another person's property and clarifies that a person will come within the definition of ‘security officer' if they personally patrol property or personally monitor a property by operating audiovisual or visual recording systems, radio or other electronic monitoring systems. Additionally, a security officer will encompass a person who guards, patrols or watches another person's property with a guard dog.

Documented occurrences of serious incidents involving trained dogs used by security officers and a consequential question over the ability of guards to handle dogs has given rise to this amendment. Greater detail has also been provided in the definition of ‘crowd controllers', where such a person is defined as someone who, for reward, is at a public place principally for keeping order in or about the stated public place, including, for example, by screening the entry of persons, monitoring or controlling the behaviour of persons, or removing persons, for example, from a hotel, a nightclub or a rock concert. A public place will also be defined to include licensed premises in entertainment venues to which the public are admitted, whether or not for consideration.

The maximum penalties for carrying out the functions of a security provider without a licence, or advertising or holding out that the person carries out or is willing to carry out the function of a security provider have been increased. A first offence will incur 500 penalty units-up from 100 penalty units. For a second offence, the penalty will increase to 700 penalty units, or six months imprisonment. For a third offence or subsequent offence, the penalty is increased to 1,000 penalty units, or 18 months imprisonment. These upgraded penalty provisions provide a strong deterrent for those seeking to operate in the industry outside the regulatory requirements.

Most significantly, new training requirements have been introduced that will require individuals to successfully complete an approved training course. Previously, to be eligible for a security officer or a crowd controller's licence a person must have completed a Certificate II in Security Operations from the National Asset Security Training Package, or to be eligible for a private investigator's licence a person must have completed a Certificate III in Investigative Services.

These new training requirements will ensure that security personnel will have to learn the most upto- date techniques for maintaining order and avoiding escalation of disputes and will require professional development to ensure that the licensee's skills are kept up to date with behaviour and situation management. Consultation undertaken during the course of developing the bill revealed concern that certain sections of the security industry have a very limited understanding of their legislative obligations and the civil and/or criminal implications of their actions as a security provider.

As a consequence of those observations and developments in the industry, it was suggested that the act be amended to require licensees to attend refresher training prior to the renewal of licences, and that is a welcome addition to the bill. Clause 21 now states that extended licences may be granted under certain conditions, including a condition about the licensee's completion of training for carrying out the functions of the security provider, such as refresher training courses and, for a security firm licence, a condition that the licensee monitors, at certain intervals, for compliance with the act.

Overall these changes are very welcome. They are very timely. They are the result of an extensive consultation, and they will give the community much greater confidence that people who work with and operate in the security industry are persons of good repute and that the training will be provided to keep their skills up to date with changes in a rapidly changing industry. I commend the bill to the House.