Thursday, 7 March 2024
Bills
Private Security and County Court Amendment Bill 2024
Bills
Private Security and County Court Amendment Bill 2024
Second reading
Debate resumed.
Chris CREWTHER (Mornington) (14:56): I rise to debate the Private Security and County Court Amendment Bill 2024, legislation that addresses 11 recommendations from a review into the private security industry under the former Andrews government. At the time, there were a number of issues with the private security industry which the original private security bill in 2004 failed to address. Indeed the industry was plagued by reports of questionable practices and misconduct, a lack of adequate training measures, unsafe working environments and more. Despite the strides the original legislation made in being the first formal recognition of the importance of a robustly regulated private security industry, the act was failing to keep up with the changing industry.
The review of Victoria’s troubled security firms, released initially in 2020, came as Victoria grappled with COVID-19 outbreaks at the quarantine hotels and it detailed an industry plagued with poor hiring practices and controversial subcontracting policies. The report also found security guards being underpaid, lacking English-language skills and often being so poorly trained that they could not perform the basic functions of their job. These industry-wide issues became most evident during the outbreak at hotel quarantine during the pandemic. The casualised nature of the industry, the associated lack of job security and the lack of appropriate training and knowledge in safety and workplace rights all contributed to a bungled hotel quarantine program.
Indeed the former Andrews Labor government and current Allan Labor government want to relegate this program to the backrooms of history – for it to be forever cast out of the memories of the Victorian people – and to shirk their responsibilities. But let me state for the record that the hotel quarantine disaster was one of the worst public administration failures in all of Victoria’s and indeed Australia’s history. The failures of the program were largely directly responsible for the COVID-19 second wave, a 111-day lockdown, 768 deaths and a smashed economy at the time. And we will never forget the collective amnesia amongst senior public servants and members of the Labor Party on whose decision it was to use private security guards, a decision that had catastrophic implications for our state and caused reverberations which are still being experienced today. I reiterate for the record that the failures of the former government and the lack of responsibility for one of the worst public administration disasters in Victoria’s history are a downright disgrace. In this debate it would be remiss of me not to note this. The Victorian people will never forget, no matter how much the government thinks it has been relegated to the history books.
Going back to the specifics of this bill, among many other measures this legislation amends the Private Security Act 2004 to provide for a new licensing system for the private security industry and amends the County Court Act 1958 and the Sentencing Act 1991 to extend the operation of the Drug Court. In relation to private security, the changes are relatively uncontroversial and will bring about those 11 changes based on the review’s findings. Clauses 4 to 41 and 44 to 61 are mostly procedural and deal with changes in language from ‘registration’ through to ‘licensing’. Clauses 42 and 43 – the insertion of new sections 136A and 136B – strengthen the requirements on private security companies when employing staff to ensure that they are appropriately licensed. Companies will now be obligated to provide full details of all staff assigned to a job to the customer, and there are severe penalties for noncompliance.
The bill will also amend the Private Security Act to provide for a new licensing system. I think that it is of utmost importance that we ensure that private security individuals and companies are maintaining the highest standards when exercising their work and that they are fit for the job. With the current Victoria Police staffing shortages and lack of adequate resources, I think we could have situations where private security is acting as a supplementary law enforcement. Just last year we all remember that 43 police stations were closed to the public late at night to ease staffing and funding pressures. This included Mornington police station, which needs more manpower and more resources, not less. We all know that violent crime, burglaries, youth violence and crime generally are increasing every day. While the police of course do a fantastic job and make the best use of the resources that they are given, it is simply not enough to tackle these burgeoning crime rates.
We have also seen private security acting as their own law enforcement on a particularly large and increasing scale. I am thinking in particular of Jubilee estate in Wyndham Vale, where at night, private security drives slowly over the roads, acting as a supplementary law enforcement, protecting residents, checking licence plates on strange cars and responding to reports of suspicious activity. All of this is largely due to Jubilee’s remoteness, being 11 kilometres from the nearest police station. Growth areas like Jubilee are incredible opportunities for home owners and families, but increasing crime rates or fear of crime combined with a lack of policing resources mean that private security has to fill in the gaps.
As such, until the Labor government actively steps up and ensures that Victoria Police are resourced more and equipped properly to tackle increasing crime rates, we are going to have private security sometimes acting as a supplementary law enforcement. That is also very worrying particularly when we have seen attacks recently and much fear within, say, the Jewish community, where we have seen a number of people targeted and the Jewish community targeted often generally as a group, even those who are not Israeli or do not have an Israeli connection, who have grown up here, who have little or nothing to do with the conflict and even those who have diverging views on the conflict.
Going back to the details of the bill, further this bill extends by two years the current three-year trial of the operation of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court, DATC, of the County Court, making it a five-year pilot. The second-reading speech refers to the extension of the trial and:
… that the lessons learned from recent evaluations of Victoria’s Drug Courts can be implemented to enhance the operation of the Drug Court.
Indeed ever since the establishment of Victoria’s first-ever Drug Court at the Dandenong Magistrates’ Court in 2002, the Drug Court in Victoria model has had a number of achievements under its belt, producing positive outcomes for the community and participants.
Despite the achievements, there are a number of measures that can be taken to improve the current system. For example, I would love to see an established agency and organisation – indeed this could be done nationwide – to foster communication and collaboration between professionals in the Drug Court, such as what they had in the US, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. This is a training, membership and advocacy organisation devoted to enhancing the Drug Court model, where professionals can exchange information and ideas. This is of course just one example, yet I would be interested to hear what evaluations the minister is referring to when they are released from the Attorney-General’s office.
In relation to the changes to the private security industry, it is also a concern of mine that these changes could take years to materialise. Victoria Police, who are responsible for overseeing private security, firearms licences and controlled weapons, is grappling with an outdated law enforcement assistance program, otherwise known as LEAP, database that will, as I understand, lose the support from its parent company in 2029. The support currently provided by the company is also limited. As such, implementing the requisite systemic changes to accommodate these private security amendments, particularly in the introduction of the new licensing system and transitional arrangements, will be costly and time consuming. During the bill briefing the department acknowledged that Victoria Police has yet to ascertain the full scope and costs required to update the database to meet the standards necessary. However, the department has said that the objectives can be achieved by the stated deadline of 19 June 2025. I am of course very reluctant to have any confidence in this date given that the government has had a history of shortcomings in delivering timely and budgeted database or IT upgrades for Victoria Police.
Furthermore, the new fee structure for private security companies and individuals is still unknown. The fee structure for licences and registrations is set out in detail in the private security regulations, and these structures will need to be substantially redrafted or remade, requiring detailed analysis through a regulatory impact statement to ascertain what fees are required on a cost recovery model. This task will be complicated because each staff member in the registry deals not only with private security matters but also firearms and controlled weapons matters. There is much uncertainty surrounding this, and it will take time to accurately assess what proportion of their time on average is spent on each private security licensing task before fees can be managed.
Overall, the coalition will not be opposing this bill, although like much of the legislation those opposite have brought forward in recent times, there are still concerns and much uncertainty as to how the amendments will work in practice.
Darren CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (15:06): It is with some pleasure that I rise this afternoon to make my contribution on the Private Security and County Court Amendment Bill 2024. I must say, in reflecting on this bill my mind really turned back to the 1990s when as a young person I was going growing up in the Buninyong area and I would often take up the opportunity to head into Ballarat to the nightclubs. I guess that is where I first became aware of the need in these nightclubs in the Ballarat area to employ bouncers and security people to make sure that those venues operated safely and that those that chose to head out for a good night were safe in those premises and to make sure that those businesses could maintain a good reputation in that community. Indeed what became a reality really in that period, not only of course in the Ballarat area but indeed in many parts of the night-time economy, was that we unfortunately saw criminality entering into these types of arrangements, where often bikies and indeed others with a criminal history were not only operating as bouncers and security guards but also perhaps doing other things on the side in those premises to help support, I guess, their way of life.
We have also seen over the last few decades the number of people employed in this industry, not only in that night-time economy sense but also indeed across the public sector in all of our public sector buildings working to help maintain and protect all of those public servants. What we have also seen is that in the nature of the employment arrangements that exist we often see a lot of casualisation, a lot of contracting out et cetera, where we see in so many ways often a bit of a race to the bottom line. Often we see workers not being provided with the necessary training or indeed even the necessary rates of pay to make sure that they have a secure job, that they are properly trained and properly qualified to do the work that they are there to do and which ultimately is about helping to keep us all safe.
What we have seen with Labor in government – and my mind certainly goes back to what many of my colleagues have also reflected on – is the reforms that were put in place by the Bracks government to help in dealing with and removing criminality from the sector, making sure that those that were employed as security guards were appropriately trained and properly licensed. We need to make sure not only that they have those things but that where necessary they are regularly retrained to make sure that they have got appropriate and contemporary skills to be able to do the work that is important to all of us in all of the settings in which they reside.
I can remember up until those tragic circumstances that we saw with the World Trade Centre – I can recall prior to that as a union official in the public sector – being able to enter public sector buildings to go and visit workers without actually having to go anywhere near any security at all. It was just simply a matter of being able to walk up and go and visit workplaces and go and talk to workers about the issues that they had. Of course with those tragic circumstances that happened back then, we see a much greater, much bigger industry today, and I think there is a lot more work that needs to be done to make sure that these workers have job security. I do wish to take the opportunity to shout out to the United Workers Union, which has been active in this space in making sure that these workers working in these spaces are recognised and well paid for the work that they do. They continue to advocate hard, I think, and I commend them for that work.
No matter what setting we are in, we all have a right to feel safe and to be safe and, where appropriate, to make sure that there are those that are employed to keep us safe. Whether that be as security officers, whether that be as bouncers when we are in the night-time economy, we want to make sure those workers are fit and proper people. We want to make sure that they are well trained and that they know how to conduct themselves appropriately to help keep us safe. I think seeing bills like this pass through this chamber is important. It is important that we see the United Workers Union continue to do the good work that they are doing in protecting and negotiating and enhancing the pay and conditions and the safety of those workers as well.
As I say, when the World Trade Centre came down it changed the nature of many public sector buildings. Those public sector buildings now do have security at each and every one of them. They are there to help keep those public servants safe and to make sure that those are that are entering the building are doing so safely and with good intent. It certainly is a massively bigger part of the economy now than what it was back then. I am sure that will be a feature of these public sector buildings for many years to come. It certainly will be a feature of many pubs and clubs and the like going forward.
Indeed I very much want to commend these arrangements to this chamber. I would like to see further work done to make sure that we keep criminality out and that we continue to see workers well trained to do this important work to help keep us all safe and indeed to make sure that these workers, given the nature of job security in this sector, are given stronger arrangements to make sure that they do have strong hours of employment and the like. As I say, I commend the union and I commend the work that the government has done in this space and will continue to do. These arrangements are important. They are important for all of our health and safety when we are out and about in the public sector and when we are out and about in clubs and nightclubs and the like, and I very much commend them to this place.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (15:15): I rise to speak on the Private Security and County Court Amendment Bill 2024. This bill is an important bill, in that it helps enhance arrangements that ensure we have a stronger and safer community, and that is something that we all, I am sure, want. I do want to just make a few brief comments, because community safety is something that we talk a lot about in this chamber. We have all been talking about it in various ways over recent times. In my community it is an issue that is spoken about often. I know only today an arrest was made in relation to a case that I am sure many Victorians have been following, and I will not go into the details of that matter. So many Victorians, I am sure, have been following that case. It is a timely opportunity to say that Victoria Police do such an incredible job in caring for our community, in ensuring that our community is safe. So this bill is an opportunity to talk about community safety and to talk about the way that the private security industry complements security more generally in the way that the community is protected from crime, from bad behaviour, from all sorts of things.
In terms of community safety in my area of Brighton, Brighton East, Elwood, Hampton and Hampton East, there have been many, many publicly raised instances of crime. Ensuring that we have a system of safety to keep the community safe is important. So when bills like this one come before the Parliament, it is an opportunity to speak to the importance of those measures. This, the private security changes, will do that. Again, it is an opportunity to talk about the work of not just private security but also Victoria Police. I am sure that every member of this place would so strongly want to say to everybody who works in community safety, whether it be in the private security industry or the police, how much we appreciate –
Juliana Addison: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the name of this bill is about private security. This is not an opportunity for the member for Brighton to grandstand.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): The bill is indeed about private security. I understand that they contribute to public safety more broadly, but I ask the member to be specific to the bill.
James NEWBURY: I think it is an opportunity in relation to safety more generally to acknowledge how our community is kept safe. I think that every member in this place, as I was saying before the interjection – almost every member; obviously every member bar one – strongly supports the work of both the private sector and the police in terms of the public enforcement of community safety.
Juliana Addison: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I believe that was an unparliamentary reference to me – the ‘bar one’ – and I seek a withdrawal, please, from the member for Brighton.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): You took personal offence to that?
Juliana Addison: I did take personal offence.
James NEWBURY: I did not refer to anybody.
Juliana Addison: Further to the point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Brighton said in this place ‘bar one’ after referring to the point of order that I made, and I took personal offence to that.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): Does the member wish to withdraw his statement?
James NEWBURY: I was not referring to any particular member, Acting Speaker.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): The comment was ‘bar one’. Is that correct?
James NEWBURY: Yes.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): So who was that referring to?
James NEWBURY: I am not sure this is a matter for debate, Acting Speaker.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): I ask the member to continue but to be mindful of his language so that it does not cause offence.
James NEWBURY: Thank you, Acting Speaker. I will continue with my thanks to both the private and public enforcers of community safety in Victoria Police and the private security industry. It is a timely opportunity to say thank you for the hard work that they do, because when community safety issues come to the fore, frustration does boil over in terms of the community with how their safety is at risk. It should never be seen –
Nick Staikos: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, we are now 6 minutes into the member for Brighton’s contribution. The member for Brighton is the Manager of Opposition Business, so we would expect that the member for Brighton would know that he has to be relevant to the bill. Given the many points of order those of us on this side of the house have to put up with sitting week after sitting week, I would ask that in his last 4 minutes on this bill he actually addresses the bill under debate.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): I do ask the member to come back to the bill. Come back to the bill, please, rather than community safety more broadly.
James NEWBURY: The core of this bill is about enhancing community safety, and those were the comments that I was trying to briefly make. I was hoping that it would not be a full 7 minutes, but here we are. All I was attempting to do was to say thank you to those in both the private and public sector who do keep us safe, and with that I will conclude my remarks.
Juliana ADDISON (Wendouree) (15:22): I am very pleased today to speak and contribute on and support the Private Security and County Court Amendment Bill 2024. I am very pleased that the opposition are supporting this bill, as they have explained. This is important, and there is agreement from the opposition, which I welcome very much. I would also, Acting Speaker Kathage, really like to thank you for your contribution and for really bringing the important essence at an individual level for one of your constituents, and I think it is a reflection on what a very hardworking local member you are, listening to people, knowing what it is like for workers in the security sector – in the private security sector – in your electorate of Yan Yean. I really want to note that on the record, to say that.
What is important to me as well is, as the member for Brighton did refer to and only referred to, community safety. For the record, I am very passionate about community safety. That is why I am particularly happy that the Drug Court trial that is referred to in this bill is in my community, because we know that the Drug Court is helping to improve community safety. I would really like to make sure that it is clear to everyone in this place that I am incredibly committed to community safety, and that is why I am making a contribution today. I would like to thank the Minister for Police, the Attorney-General, their advisers, their ministerial officers and their departments for doing the work to bring the Private Security and County Court Amendment Bill to the house today.
Before bringing it to this place there was a significant amount of engagement, particularly with the Victorian security industry advisory committee, and the stakeholders or the key players that are on that committee are Victoria Police and our friends at the United Workers Union. It has already been announced today, but the United Workers Union is a union that proudly represents private security workers, and it does such an excellent job. I would like to thank the organisers and the officials at the UWU for the work that they do supporting workers in the private security sector. It was the Victorian security industry advisory committee that also provided input into the previous 2021 report on the review of the private security industry. The review also included public consultations in 2020, and its recommendations have directly informed the bill before us today. I want to recognise those consulted regarding the extension of the Drug Court trial, which includes Court Services Victoria as well as the County Court.
In the lead-up to the 2018 election – a great election, when I was elected to this place like so many people who are currently here – the Andrews Labor government promised to review the private security industry with a view to improving working conditions and reinforcing community confidence. The review process included a period of public consultation, which resulted in 21 recommendations to government, all of which have been accepted, because that is what we do as a government – we listen to experts and then we embrace their recommendations. A number of these have already been implemented without the need for legislation, while others are still underway.
The bill before us today addresses those which do require legislative support in order to streamline and modernise private security licensing. It proposes amendments to the Private Security Act 2004, which makes sense – 20 years on, the nature of the security sector would have changed – here considered the principal act, which will address subcontracting, conduct standards, refresher training, risk management and redundant licensing requirements. I will speak to these as well as talking about the importance of the Drug Court for my community in Ballarat. What this bill does is proposes consequential amendments to other bills before concluding with minor amendments to the County Court Act 1958 and the Sentencing Act 1991, which extend the operation of the County Court drug pilot program, which is in, as I said, Ballarat as well as Shepparton as the regional Drug Courts.
While subcontracting can be necessary to manage surge demands for security services, this bill addresses the shameful yet persistent issue of sham contracting. We on this side, with all our friends in the union movement, know about sham contracting. Sham contracting occurs when private security workers are falsely classified as independent contractors, all the while missing out on the benefit of protections of employment. With this bill, private security subcontracting will be reformed to require independent contractors to hold not only an ABN and an individual operators licence but also a private security business licence, allowing for those who are genuine business operators –
Richard Riordan interjected.
Juliana ADDISON: like my friend who was a genuine business operator who is interjecting – while at the same time making sham contracting prohibitively difficult. I am sure we are all in agreement with that, which is why the opposition is supporting this bill.
Additionally, private security businesses will need to seek their clients’ consent when hiring subcontractors and provide the proposed subcontractors’ names and licence numbers in the process. In most cases this must be done in advance or within three days in limited, short-notice situations. There are a number of other requirements of the act, including to ensure that private security professionals receive the training, guidelines and information necessary to best support them in their work, and for one, refresher training will be required prior to the regular three-yearly renewal of private security licences. This includes first-aid training as well as activity-specific training such as de-escalation techniques and safe restraint practices – once again all ensuring community safety, which I am very passionate about; I think I have said that about three times now.
Tying licence renewal to training refreshment will reinforce the professional skills of private security workers, improving their safety as well as the broader public’s. Looking at the client side, there will also be a requirement that any person or business employing private security must provide in advance a risk management plan. We know that critical information is so often contextual – take evacuation plans, which are venue-specific but always essential for security staff to understand. With this amendment we are ensuring private security workers will be provided with the information they need to do their job. This bill will also provide broader clarity concerning the roles and responsibilities of private security workers through a code of conduct for licence-holders, to be developed by the Chief Commissioner of Police with industry stakeholders. Together these reforms seek to provide workers in the private security industry with the tools they need to be safe and supported.
To this end, I note that this bill will further improve several aspects of individual contractor licensing. Currently personal references must be provided with applications, and applicants must also advertise their applications in print – requirements that can be time-consuming and costly for aspiring security workers. While well intentioned, the burden outweighs the benefits. Police have other methods of assessing applicants’ suitability that are more valuable often than personal references, while printed application notices have not promoted one single objection in 20 years so are definitely out of date and obsolete. As such, under the proposed licensing reforms, both requirements will be removed.
Importantly – and I will just quickly skip to the Drug Court – while much of this bill does pertain to private security contractors it also makes amendments to the County Court Act 1958 and the Sentencing Act 1991 to facilitate a two-year extension of the County Court drug pilot program. This pilot was established in 2022 with what was initially a three-year time frame and has since seen Drug Courts established regionally both in Shepparton and in Ballarat.
I was pleased to be able to join the Attorney-General to attend the official launch of the Ballarat Drug Court in March 2022. Ballarat is the second Drug Court to open in regional Victoria. The expansion of the Drug Court is part of a $35 million expansion of this very successful program. Significantly, the expansion of the Drug Court means that people in Ballarat can participate close to home, and it means that we have specialised court services in the heart of my community. I have observed the Drug Court in action in Ballarat and strongly believe that it is helping members of my community address and overcome drug use and turn their lives around. This is because Drug Court judges have sentencing options – I note, only for appropriate offenders – aimed at addressing the underlying causes of offending. The Drug Court is working to break the cycle of addiction and offending by providing alternative rehabilitation pathways that require participants to undertake alcohol and drug counselling, comply with drug testing and regularly attend court review hearings, case management and clinical adviser appointments to ensure that they stay on track.
In closing, I believe that supporting people to address alcohol and drug use instead of punishing them will make their lives better and make my community safer. I wholeheartedly recommend and commend this bill to the house.
Paul MERCURIO (Hastings) (15:32): I rise to make my contribution to the Private Security and County Court Amendment Bill 2024. As I begin, may I say, Acting Speaker Kathage, I thought your contribution earlier in this place was dignified and succinct, and I thank you for that.
When I look at a bill that we are going to debate, I always like to read the information and the second reading, like we all do in this place, and what I try to do to really understand is bring it down to a very simple idea of what the bill is about. It has been spoken about in this place that this bill is really about keeping us safe – not just us in this room but also our friends, our families, our communities, people out in the public and our loved ones. I think that is really, really important. Not only is it about keeping all of us and our families safe, but this bill is also about keeping those people that keep us safe safe. That is a really important thing about this bill. If we do not keep those people who are protecting us safe, then we can be in a lot of trouble ourselves. I think that is a great thing, and I am very glad that those on the opposite side of the chamber are supporting this bill for that reason.
I think back, way back, to the 1980s when I went to Sydney, taking on my very first job. I moved into a flat with a friend who lived in Elizabeth Bay, which is a hop, a skip and a jump from Kings Cross. After work performing at the opera house I would jump on the motorbike and go up to Kings Cross to have some dinner. I have got to say it was a pretty colourful place in the 1980s, the Cross – quite exciting at times and very dangerous. If you went off the beaten track, it certainly was not safe. When you walked down the main street, you did take your life into your own hands to some extent because I guess the security guards or the bouncers were very excitable – they were very tough; they were very dangerous – and if you looked at them in the wrong way, you could get into a lot of trouble. But they did look after you. Even though I had to be cautious I often felt safe with them. I was really amazed at the amount of people that would go into the Cross, have a few beers and take the bouncers on. It was great viewing, often very bloody, but I never understood why they did that, because pretty much they always lost. This bill replaces the Private Security Act 2004, and I am very glad the Private Security Act came in, because I guess that cleaned up the issues at Kings Cross to some extent.
This bill aims to pass through the recommendations made in the report on the review of the private security industry, which was endorsed by cabinet and published in late 2021. The report came about from an election commitment before my time in this place, which was to review the industry and see what could be done to improve workers’ access to fair pay and work conditions and improve the professionalism within the security industry and therefore get a better public relationship and reputation. It will accomplish all that by a number of different measures, a lot of which have been spoken of in this place already.
I will highlight a couple – first off, cutting some red tape, which is always a fantastic thing. We love cutting red tape. We will do that by replacing the current two-tier system, which required certain security companies to obtain registration and others a licence. With this bill it is now on a single-tier licensing system. It will also require workers in high-risk roles to undergo refresher training prior to licence renewal. Surprisingly, this was not a previous requirement. You could get your licence, work in the industry for years and not have to go through any sort of refresher training. Obviously for an important job like this surely you would need to stay up to date with your training. People who serve alcohol and have an RSA have to undergo training and refresher courses. Construction workers, supermarket workers and accountants – the list goes on and on – all have to undergo some form of refresher training. ‘Why?’, you might ask. It is because laws change, societies change and skills change. First aid, safe physical restraint practices and verbal de-escalation tactics et cetera are all continually updated and critical for workers in high-risk roles, and we need people to be prepared for that.
This bill will seek to deter dodgy sham contracting by making sure that a person wanting to operate under an ABN as an individual security supplier will also have to obtain a business private security licence. This means that it is much more difficult for employers to ask individual workers to get an ABN. They do this so that they can avoid paying employment-related costs. This just makes it fairer for workers, and I am all about that.
In essence this bill is about community safety, as I said. We want the community to feel safe and that they are protected, and when they are out at a nightclub, pub or event they feel safe knowing that the security hired will do the job, be professional and also know that they are being paid properly for their time. That is why we have brought this bill to this place, because our private security workforce are incredibly important to us. We could not have sheer amount of concerts, sporting events and festivals without them, and we know that in Victoria we always have the best and biggest events, like the upcoming Melbourne F1 grand prix, which is a fantastic event. If I might just say, I did win the 2000 celebrity race at the grand prix, so I am an F1 grand prix winner.
Richard Riordan: So you can dance and drive.
Paul MERCURIO: I can. Later on I came third in the champion-of-champions race. I did have bodyguards to take me to get my trophy, mainly because I beat Richard Wilkins and he was very upset about it. Anyway, the economy thrives on these events, and we all want to ensure that private security workers are compensated fairly for working long days and have appropriate training as well to deal with the millions of patrons that come through each year. We want them to get home after work or in the morning safe.
This bill will ensure to uphold the integrity and raise professional standards for our private security industry, but it should not diminish the character of companies or individuals that are always doing the right thing, act professionally at all times and do not do dodgy things – dodgy things like bringing in unqualified, untrained people to do security-related work that they should not be doing. Unfortunately, hotel quarantine was a pretty good prime example of that. It is good to know that Victoria Police and the Police Association Victoria have been consulted and are in support of these changes.
The recommendations from the report did not entirely require legislative changes, as some could be achieved without it. For example, Victoria Police now sends a fact sheet out with every licence about worker rights and obligations, including where to find out what they should be being paid and what their entitlements to leave, superannuation and other matters are. The fact sheet includes a list of organisations that can help workers ensure they are paid fairly, including the relevant union the mighty United Workers Union, the Labour Hire Authority and the Fair Work Ombudsman.
As others have said, certainly one of the most important changes this will bring is to eliminate sham contracting from occurring. Dodgy employers have essentially identified a loophole that allows them to avoid responsibilities to their workers. These responsibilities that they do not want their workers to have are rights most employees should have, such as getting paid a fair wage according to the award, providing superannuation so that they can retire with dignity, providing WorkCover insurance and also providing leave. These are hardworking and everyday Victorians that miss out. It is wrong, and we are not going to stand by and allow it to happen anymore. A fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay – this bill will provide this.
I might just quickly talk about another change in this bill, which enables the pilot Drug Court division within the County Court of Victoria to continue operating for two more years. This is a fantastic thing. I know there was some pushback from the other side about why we need to and why we have different postcodes et cetera. As members on this side of the chamber tried to explain, it is a trial, and the best way to get a proper understanding of a situation or a trial is to spread it wide and try to get a really good reference of the community. This model addresses the underlying causes of offending by providing intensive drug treatment services to offenders and also enhances the community connectedness of participants, which will aim to reduce reoffending, as it gives them the skills to improve their personal relationships, offers housing stability and educates them on life skills so they can thrive. What we want is to rehabilitate people so that they do not reoffend. Whilst this program is not for everyone, and nor should it be, for those that have a chance to rehabilitate, we should absolutely be supporting that. That is why I support the extension of the trial for two years. I commend this bill to the house.
Kathleen MATTHEWS-WARD (Broadmeadows) (15:42): I rise to support the Private Security and County Court Amendment Bill 2024. The final report of the review of the private security industry in Victoria provided 21 recommendations, all of which have been accepted by the government. This review delivered on a Labor election commitment to better regulate the private security industry with a view to improving conditions for workers and to provide a more professional, well-regarded industry. Work has been underway since the final report was released to fulfil these recommendations, and around half are addressed by this bill, as the remainder do not require legislation.
Our private security workforce makes an important contribution to keeping our community safe. This bill will make the industry safer for workers by increasing training requirements to ensure they have the ability to complete their job safely but also by introducing ways to ensure workers are fairly paid and not exploited. For example, the introduction of the new requirement of refresher training for private security workers in high-risk roles, such as crowd control, bodyguards or static guards, will benefit the community and those attending events as well as the security workers themselves. From parties to public festivals to large public events we will have an assurance that all private security workers are equally skilled in first aid, verbal de-escalation and safe physical restraint.
I am proud that my electorate celebrates a diverse range of faiths and cultures, with many public events and festivals. The comfort of knowing that those employed to keep events safe and secure are all trained to manage potential risks or threats is invaluable. Some of our local events are enormous. Luckily the security guards are rarely needed to prevent or de-escalate situations and instead often help more with directions and parking, but knowing they are trained in first aid will bring great relief to the community. First-aid training is a life skill that can be used outside the workplace as well. Knowing how to help somebody who has fainted, hurt themselves or is having a medical episode is something that everyone can benefit from. My daughter recently completed her first-aid and resuscitation certificate at Broadmeadows town hall as part of her pool lifeguard training. There were people from many different industries in her class; teachers, lifeguards, childcare workers and white-collar office workers were all enrolled. The skills that security guards gain will benefit themselves, their families and their communities.
Staff and community safety is further enhanced by the amendment requiring security services to do their own risk assessment and site induction for an event. They need to provide this to hired security workers so that they are familiar with the venue, the security risks and where possible threats may come from – an action plan on how to deal with any issues that may arise. Currently for many security staff, walking into an event is often the first time they have set foot in the venue. They are expected to begin work immediately without ever having had the chance to check out the exits and safe places. It seems unthinkable that someone employed to manage the public safety of up to thousands of people has no idea of the potential risks or even the site layout. This legislation will provide for security staff to be fully equipped to be able to do their job safely, protecting both them and the community.
Labor has long fought to improve the rights and conditions of workers, and this bill furthers that tradition. While subcontracting is an important feature of the private security sector due to surge demand to cover large events, unclear and unauthorised subcontracting is still rife in the industry, allowing unscrupulous employers to exploit workers, many of whom live in my electorate. The Broadmeadows electorate is very diverse and is often the first place many new arrivals begin their lives in Australia. We also speak many languages, and for over 60 per cent of the population English is a second language. New arrivals and people with English as a second language are more vulnerable to exploitation at work, and this bill will help ensure that they know their rights and are protected from the cowboys in the industry. Unregulated subcontracting purely benefits the employer, and providers use this to maximise profit by hiring subcontractors for low pay, taking advantage of workers and creating poor workplace standards. These reforms will give transparency to the organisations hiring the security services, as they will have full visibility of the details of each worker and require the employer to complete written agreements to hire subcontractors.
The protection of private security workers is at the forefront of this bill, and it has a number of reforms to make sure our workers are getting fair pay and the rights and benefits they are entitled to. We saw the dangers of insecure work during the COVID-19 pandemic, not only in the security industry but also in the healthcare industry. I saw firsthand how dangerous it was in aged care especially, where workers had to move between worksites and employers because it was the only way to regularly get enough hours to make ends meet to put food on the table for their families. I am so proud of federal Labor’s reforms in aged care to improve job security, pay and workers rights as well as vastly improve the quality of life of older people.
I am so very proud of the Victorian government’s sick pay guarantee, introduced by Labor to ensure that casuals and contract workers get up to five days of sick and carers leave a year so that they are no longer forced to choose between a day’s pay and looking after their health or the health of a loved one. We know that many casuals and contract workers have had to go to work sick because they simply could not afford not to, but under this scheme workers in laundries, aged and disability care, hospitality and the food industry, supermarkets, retail and sales, accommodation, tourism, beauty, transport, farming and manufacturing and of course security guards can claim up to 38 hours a year whenever they are sick or injured or need to look after a loved one. This initiative was an Australian first but also a game changer for many workers, especially those who are the carers of family members with chronic illness or disability.
Back to security workers: a tactic sometimes used by private security employers is sham contracting, where potential employees ask individual licence-holders to obtain an ABN so that they can be classified as an independent contractor rather than taking them on as an employee. This means that they do not have to pay an award rate, provide for super or WorkCover insurance or pay for leave. This bill will now require any person listed as an independent contractor to hold a private security business licence. Only workers who legitimately want to run a business will undergo this procedure, thus reducing the opportunity for sham contracting, and the bill will effectively force employers to provide fairer arrangements for workers as well as ensure they are insured, paid super and have leave available. This bill will keep the people who keep us safe safe themselves.
A new code of conduct will also be introduced, and it will be enforceable. This will benefit the workers to make sure they are given clear and consistent standards for their employment. It will improve the public perception of security workers and increase the sense of respect and pride in their jobs. The kinds of things that will be considered during the development of the new code of conduct include treating people with dignity, respecting diversity and a commitment to using appropriate escalation of intervention during incidents. I thank the private security workers for the outstanding job they do, keeping our community safe at all hours of the day and night and putting themselves on the line.
I would also like to acknowledge the work of the industry groups that have implemented or are working towards the implementation of the other recommendations from the final report – the recommendations that did not require legislation. For example, Victoria Police now sends out a fact sheet with every private security licence about workers rights and obligations, including how to find out what they should be being paid, their entitlements to leave, superannuation and other matters. It also includes a list of organisations that can help workers check they are being paid fairly, including the relevant union, the Labour Hire Authority and the workplace ombudsman. This fact sheet complements the legislation in this bill and goes further to ensure that people can access their rights and obligations.
This is especially important in the security industry because, as mentioned earlier, many workers are newly arrived and may not be aware of the employment protections they are entitled to in Australia – protections that only exist thanks to the work of the labour movement over the decades. I thank the minister, the minister’s office, the department, the industry reps and the unions, who have all worked together to bring this bill before us.
The bill also contains an extension of the pilot of the County Court Drug Court for a further two years. This will allow the trials of the existing four courts to continue and provide more time to fully evaluate the long-term results and put learnings into place. The objectives of the Drug Court are to improve the health and wellbeing of participants through reduced alcohol and other drug use, to reduce criminal behaviour and to increase connection to the community. The KPMG report into the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court Drug Court showed a 34 per cent reduction in reoffending after 24 months, and similarly a 29 per cent reduction in reoffending was seen in the Dandenong Drug Court evaluation.
My Broadmeadows electorate already houses a local Magistrates’ Court, so it provides an immediate opportunity to be included in any further expansions of Drug Court locations. The Drug Court delivers specialised treatment and support. The program addresses the underlying factors that contribute to offending, such as unemployment and isolation, and helps people to stay drug and crime free. Given that we are seeing such great results from the current trial, an extension to the pilot will see further positive results for participants and the community, so extending the pilot to provide more data for assessment is a no-brainer.
After a visit to the Ballarat Drug Court the Attorney-General met with a recent graduate and commented on the life-changing effects of the program. She said:
The young man not only turned his life around but now works with youth who have dependency issues. It is humbling to hear about the real personal difference that the program can make.
The member for Wendouree invited me out to see the Ballarat Drug Court, and I am very much looking forward to seeing that. The Labor government’s investment into Drug Courts has proven it is a success and continues to be a positive initiative, and I wholeheartedly endorse this bill.
Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (15:52): I too rise to make a contribution on the Private Security and County Court Amendment Bill 2024. At the outset I want to just reflect on a couple of contributions that have been made today, particularly that of the member for Hastings. I am very pleased that he was able to make a reference in his contribution to his performance at the opera house and his participation in the celebrity race down at the grand prix –
Paul Mercurio interjected.
Paul HAMER: twice – two episodes that I think very few members of this place will ever have the luxury of being able to say they had, so congratulations to the member for Hastings for getting that in.
This is an important bill. It does deal with some important matters in relation to the private security industry in creating a single licensing system for all private security workers and businesses, streamlining the application process for private security licences and imposing new requirements for refresher training prior to the renewal of licences.
I just want to reflect a bit on the very important work that private security firms do, particularly in the electorate of Box Hill. I spoke earlier in the week in my members statement about our Lunar New Year festival, which attracts every year about 100,000 people. There are many other major festivals in and around Box Hill, particularly celebrating the Chinese community contribution but also the broader community – the Whitehorse Spring Festival and other major festivals. All of these events do pose risks just by the nature of having large crowds gathered in relatively small confines, and it does take really well trained staff and personnel to be able to make sure that they are across any incident that could potentially come their way. We see that at many other events across all of our communities with the private security firms. This is why it is important to have well-trained licensed professionals whose role and job and career it is to protect the public – and they do their job very well.
I also want to note the private security arrangements and involvements in some of our schools. Particularly I am thinking of Mount Scopus, which is a Jewish school in my electorate, and I know this would be the case for many other Jewish schools in other electorates around the state. The importance of security at these schools cannot be overstated. It is really an unfortunate state of events that this is the reality for Jewish schools and Jewish children, not just in Victoria but almost anywhere in the world – that there are external threats and external dangers. You can have a form of physical protection, which many of them invest heavily in having, but they also need those human eyes and ears to keep an eye on what is happening, look out for any suspicious behaviour and provide that layer of security and surety for the community who are sending their children to these schools.
In saying this, I think that some of the rhetoric that we have heard come out of people in this place has created an environment where others may feel enabled and emboldened to take action against Jews, particularly the youngest members of the community, being children who really have no involvement in any of the things that are going on overseas. It is always sad for me as a parent to see that we have schools that need such high-level private security. But I do want to thank all of those private security workers who are doing this really important work.
In relation to the bill, it is a very diverse landscape that the security industry has to cater for. It is really important that the workers in that industry are properly trained and also that we have proper conditions and appropriate conditions, including remuneration, to be able to attract and retain those workers in the private security industry. Since the reforms last happened in 2004, since the act was introduced, we have seen the emergence of more profit-driven actors across the security industry. Some members of the industry have prioritised profit over fair pay and work conditions, leaving a highly casual, mobile and vulnerable workforce in their wake. Key industry advocates have identified deep concerns about the rights of workers, the barriers to healthy business competition and the behaviour of some trainers and workers, which brings down the reputation of the entire industry. That is what this bill is seeking to address, those employers at security companies who do not pay fair wages and do not afford workers genuine flexibility and access to legal entitlements, such as superannuation, leave and insurance, and it is aimed at the training organisations who do not deliver the required training. It is aimed at those training organisations who simply sign off on an untrained and unprepared worker as being qualified to obtain a private security licence.
Referring back to the examples I spoke of at the beginning of the contribution, if you are trying to protect against a real and present threat, particularly if it is against a school or if it is a real and present threat to a large community gathering with a large number of people, you want people who are properly trained. You want people who have gone through the process. You do not want the private security firms to have cut corners, saying, ‘Here’s a group of workers that you can use. Thanks, I’ll take your money.’ Then you have got the workers there being put in some very, very difficult situations.
The bill also, as has been mentioned by a number of other speakers, addresses significant concerns around subcontracting. Until recently subcontracting of security work in Victoria was unregulated. The bill makes it clear that if a person or organisation signs a contract with a security provider, they must approve any subcontracting by that provider in writing. In addition, providers must supply the name and licence number of each worker hired under a subcontracting arrangement, and penalties will apply for failure to comply with that requirement.
The bill also addresses refresher training at licence renewal, and as referred to before, while most security workers will have had further experience and particularly on-the-job experience between their refresher requirements, for others there could be significant consequences if they do not keep up to date with skills such as a first aid and verbal de-escalation and safe physical restraint.
We have also heard a number of times about the problem of sham contracting in the industry, where an employer might ask an individual security licence holder to obtain an ABN and then act as a contractor, as a sole trader, rather than as an employee. By doing this the employer does not have to pay the costs associated with the person hired under a genuine agreement, and they do not have to pay an award wage or provide for super, WorkCover insurance or leave entitlements. This is something that we as a Labor government are really committed to removing, particularly in an industry as important as the private security industry. For all of these reasons I commend the bill to the house.
That the debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.