How to improve the Security Industry!

Kia Ora,

Being thinking about this for a while. The ways we can improve the NZ security industry. In fact being thinking about it since I entered the industry on leaving the army as the standards are so low & the people of NZ don't deserve such low standards.

Well the first way is of course is by government legislation, but the attitude of the select committee & politicians in general to this means the proposed legislation, which is a bit of a joke anyway, & any regulations will not be sufficient.

In fact they are likely to take the industry backwards judging on what was in the proposed bill.

Next is the Industry itself, lead by the associations. Again not likely as they can grab work if someone else is sticking to their standards, so why stick to something that is not legislated for.

At least one association actually requires you to drop your standards to be part of their grouping.

Then comes the insurance industry who could make it quite easy to raise standards, lower costs to clients in the long run & lower their own risk in financial terms by insisting on compliance with international standards.

But you need to look at how the insurance industry in NZ works & it does none of the above.

First you have liability insurance. Over the last few years, I have noticed the amount rise & the cover drop.

Like the insuarnce you get for being directors or in a governance role when you look at it, it actually doesn't cover you for anything. As the directors of the failed finance companies are finding out.

Recent reading about Warren Buffett made me think more about this. Here is one of the richest men in the world, who actually owns insurance companies that specialize in this type of insurance, yet he will not have his directors insured.

Why? Because he says it makes them lazy. True when one of your directors is Bill Gates, he might be able to cover any issues arising. By not insuring them, Buffett reckons he makes the directors (including himself) do their homework & make responsible decisions.

So what does that have to do with NZ security. The industry is lazy & the insurance industry allows them to be so. If it sat down & looked at it properly then OSH would require more staff.
The Insurance industry can insist on this as part of their coverage. In fact they often say there has to be security for certain events. But they don't ensure it is OSH compliant. 

It usually isn't because only one guard is put on duty when the minimum if you do an assessment is two. That is also an international standard.

Who watches the property or person when the guard needs to go to the toilet?

Where is the toilet? That is the question guards often ask to be told hold on, in breach of OSH. Sixteen hours without a toilet break is not accepted anywhere else.

Each year when you renew your liability insurance you get a form to tick, but it never requires a company to show that it has being compliant with OSH or any other releveant laws. So it adds no value to the business.

Apart from everyone saying you have to have liability insurance, in particular government contracts, it is actually of no value.

For example what is known as Cash in Transit or armoured vans to everyone else there is no requirement to have a standard.

People will argue they do, but you only have to watch the crews in action to see there are no real drills or training. With the world's economy in melt down (despite the smoke, mirrors & manipulation of figures that is what is happening right now) more robberies are likely, almost on a daily basis.

Another question I have asked some Cash in Transit crews is the subject of body armour, many think they need it, one told me they didn't. As pointed out, if a proper risk assessment is done then not only should they have body armour, but also a riot helmet & if allowed firearms. As well as proper training, not just wandering to the van & back as happens most times now.

On the question of body armour also the insurance industry can have an effect on.

For example in Iraq, you could supply your own bodyarmour if you wished, but because so many people were running around trying to buy this or that & the lightest going, a standard had to be set.

So as the threat increased the minimum you could use of your personal issue had to be level IV or greater. It also had to be properly rated & current. Other wise you were not covered by insurance.

Ironically you still got your insurance payment (or your family did) if you had no bodyarmour available.

But like OSH it recognized that at times there would be none available (unless you had your own) that it is an expensive item & procedures needed to be in place to ensure safety was paramount.

Right now in the security industry there are very few if any SOP's used & if they are there no one knows how to use them, as they are only ever a guideline as they can not cover every situation.
There are also many in the industry running around with stab vests & armour whose ratings are out of date or are of an unknown quality.

In the four years since returning from Iraq, I have not once being asked to produce my SOP's or certify my bodyarmour or show why I think it is needed.

If my company is liable, I don't need insurance to ensure I protect a person or property. But even when it hasn't being my company that military duty of service kicks in & you are determined as possible to not let it happen on your watch.

But more than once I have worked with guards who show up with a sleeping mat.

So the industry can be brought into line with the world standards & is going to need to be as crime threatens to get more out of control with worsening economic conditions.

In the meantime with a small company I am endeavouring to do my bit to raise the standards.

www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz