Health & Safety

Kia Ora,

Had a call yesterday to carry out some sub contract security work. Good people to work for  & they are always looking to improve.

But as it is an overnight task in a dodgy area (what part of Christchurch isn't these days?) the one question I asked was "Suppose only one on site in breach of OSH again?". Of course.

The conversation went along the lines that no matter how he puts it clients don't think it warrants a second person.

We then moved onto the event proper.  It seems the police were concerned about the low number of security & made the comment that there must be a minimum number you have to have. It was pointed out that yes there is an international standard, but since it is not enshrined in law here in NZ, the clients basically often set the numbers (more often than not).

Now this is where a security consultant that would be well known to many of my ex army comrades has repeatedly made a point.

Health & Safety is empowering to the Security industry but they have to open their eyes to it.

Other issue there is unless the industry as a whole agrees to it then it won't work. That is the issue facing the people I subcontract too. They do their best, but if they push it too much they will just loose the work.

In other countries it has had to be put in law, but our politicians are out of touch or too corrupt to actually do anything until someone gets killed. So as we used to say in the army they are a waste of rations or an oxygen thief.

The other ways this can be enforced or improved is through the insurance industry.

This is nothing but a rort. If you have liability insurance for you business in this country you will find that it doesn't cover you for what it should. The questionaire they send out each year at renewal time does not require security to be actually providing security & therefore lessoning the possibility of a claim.

It is interesting that Warren Buffet, the worlds greatest investor who wealth is mainly in insurance companies, does not give his directors liabliity insurance because he says it makes them lazy.

Same thing in security industry here. People are too lazy to do security properly because they think their insurance will cover them.

The next group are the Department of Labour Health & Safety Inspectors.

They have the right to enter any place of work, but they can't go unless there has being a complaint.

Now someone has said to me that since basically every task i have done is in breach of Health & Safety, & I have my own security company, then I should complain. Only thing is this then impacts on the persons company I am subcontracting too & the people whom they employ.

I have said to them though that should I get assaulted then I will lay a complaint, since we both raise these issues constantly. The only way for clients to get the message is for them to be prosecuted. There was an incident right at the end of last year where a person was threatening bodily harm. Now since there was only me, instead of the 7 guards there should of being to secure the premise, it was a breach of OSH. Had they being called it would of closed an event that would of cost probably millions.

As part of an OSH review I have put forward, as have many of the other attendees, that inspectors should be allowed to go on any work site at any time as they are aware of issues in industries, but cannot act without a complaint.

Funny thing was that people attending that meeting were people that could see were OSH was a plus when used correctly.

But yet again it falls to the Police to look at imposing conditions. I am sure they often wonder why if there is security on site, why they are getting called. But one guard for a thousand people doesn't mean much.

Risk Assessment doesn't mean you don't do anything or put you in a negative mindset. In fact if it is part of your culture as it is in the military then it can be very positive.

In fact that is all what soldiering is about. You plan for the what if's & it puts you half way towards dealing with anything thrown at you.

That was why ex military pers do so well in Iraq & Afghanistan. All it is is risk Assessment as opposed to Risk Management. It is very fluid risk assessment based on information gleaned from intelligence reports (OK military inteligence is an oxymoron at times but you do get useful information occassionally), people on the streets, other mates by phone (that is a very Iraq thing, as soon as something happens the phones are going passing it on) & again from those reports, what has happened in the past. Based on that calls over radio would often go "dead dog right, car left, tyre left, box middle, guy on bridge with phone, car stopping on bridge". all part of the risk assessment due to the right culture.

Just as easy to do it in security.

Again I go back to someone who wasn't ex military but got his qualifications in Britain. In Britain an event is planned around the security professionals plan. Even the police take their que from them (An Aussie consultant has told me that for most events the same happens there now).

Where as in NZ it is more often than not, if security are even involved in the planning, it is all decided & then as an after thought at the end of the meeting it is "Oh security you got anything?"

This approach will not be acceptable at the world cup or likely any future events in the not too distant future.

During submissions on the new security personnel bill an MP told me that things will be up to standard by the world cup due to special legislation.

Why do we need special legislation just for one event when it whould be at that standard all the time?

I also seriously doubt whether it will be up to standard by that time as first & foremost there needs to be a serious mindset change not only amongst the security industry but the NZ public as well in regards to security.


I still can't see why people should basically put their lives on the line for low pay & shit conditions, when even their basic Health & Safety is not considered.