Should and could there be common rules for commercial security in countries like the USA and Australia, or in an entity like European Union, which are all connected somehow to the regulatory regimes under study? The need for common rules was expressed by many of the interviewees, but internal political realities seemed to have made this solution generally impossible for the time being. It was obvious that, at least today, commercial security regulations will not be the first area in legislation where the states’ legislative independence concerning law enforcement-related matters will be
broken up. The interviewee comments in this context are mainly from New York and Queensland as this matter is principally relevant to them. In the European Union, the split is in many ways administratively and culturally even more complicated because it affects the law enforcement governance models of independent nation states. Even so the interviewees from Belgium and Sweden,expressed some opinions on this matter.
The situation and attitudes are generally still diversified in Europe as have been expressed by national associations of commercial security (De Clerck, et al 2007:20-33).
In the State of New York the interviewee opinions supported more streamlined rules on this matter. No common or structured policy could, however, be found amongst them.
One aspect commented on was the hope for nationally standardised background checks on security guards in order to streamline their basic control: “What I’d like to see on federal level, I think a security officer needs to have a proper background check run by the FBI. (Manager) In another comment an interviewee hoped for a federal minimum standard, which could be extended by the state governments: “The minimum statutory standards [regulations] should be federal applying to all the states in the United States.
The individual states could then add on top of that special things they see to be needed.”
(Manage) The same interviewee also saw terrorism as a good justification argument to support this kind of federal legislation: “The threat of terrorism could be a tactic to enforce federal regulation because anything else would not make the states to accept it.
An emergency like terrorism threat could do that.” This interviewee was, however, aware of the basic problem in achieving this kind of model: “The balance between the states and federal legislature and executive is such that no-one wants to change that balance.”
In another comment the approach was a more cautious one and emphasised voluntary co-operation. “As far as to be state or federal, I think that it would help if both the state and federal authorities became more engaged on the issue.” (Industry expert) Also this interviewee took up the terrorist threat as an argument for more streamlined regulation.
He commented on a federal report on the 9/11 incident which included discussion on the role of commercial security in protecting critical national infrastructure. The interviewee wondered, however, why there was no follow up of this path by saying:
“And an interesting fact is in that report, and it is yet to be followed up, 85% of the infrastructure in this country is protected not by public security officers but by private. This is totalling statistics and talks about their importance I think, the
scope in this country. But unlike other aspects in the 9/11 commission report there is no follow up in regard to the private sector security officers.”
The comments here reflect some hesitancy and caution to express opinions too strongly on this issue.
In Australia, the matter of uniform private security regulation has been handled by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). Even if all the practical facts support a federal streamlining of commercial security regulation, again the state legislative independence principle tips over this kind of proposals. However the idea is still alive (Davitt 2010; Sarre and Prenzler 2011). As can be seen from the following comment by a Queensland official, before the proposal was turned down, there was a genuine need and will for change:
“...last year (2007) COAG, that is the peak ministerial body comprising of prime minister and all the premiers throughout the States agreed and then decided that harmonisation is a way to move forward in terms of providing a uniform [security] industry. ...The logical and theoretical model should be a single piece of legislation, and theoretically speaking the most logical choice would be the Commonwealth Government’s single piece of regulation which covers all the states.” (Industry expert)
The terrorism threat, as in the United States played also in this discussion and decision making a vital role, as was stated in the same context:
“That was primarily related to the counter terrorism agenda that COAG held at that time at its hold. A review that was conducted by the minister of another department was consistent with that wish so it was working towards that goal and that harmonisation... We are getting very, very close to standards of criteria on a lot of things.”
The comments from people actually working within the industry supported harmonisation. They had met the problems of the present situation in their work and wanted a change. They saw that the guards and the industry would benefit from this kind of development: “From a security personnel point of view I would like to see a federal regulation with national competency standards applied across the borders. So it would make the license portable.” (Expert) He also pointed out that the streamlining of checks connected to licensing would be easier to perform: “It would also let other jurisdictions to access criminal records from all over the country.” In practice he was as sceptical as the others of the possibilities to achieve this. “I cannot see it [harmonisation] happening in the medium term. ...In the next ten years, no, in twenty years there may be some considerations.” The same interviewee came back to the
subject in another context and described in a clear and more comprehensive way the situation as well as a model of desirable best practices serving all interest groups:
“It is a mess, a complete mess. If I had my way I would take all state power away from regulating the industry and I would give it to the Federal Department of Justice. That way we would get a uniform set of regulations and laws and a uniform set of competencies standards which the industry has to make before being licensed. It just makes sense, it really does and I just find that the disjoint approach with each state doing its own thing actually adds to the poor perception of the industry as a whole. So for clients who have a number of offices in different states, they have to deal with all these different systems. It is burdensome and they should not have to worry of the extra workload associated with combining different legislation in every single state. So federally applied jurisdiction and applied regulation would work much better. I think politically it is going to be really tough to convince the states.”
A similar statement was given by a frontline security professional:
“It should be regulated on the federal level because Australia is a very large country but the population is predominantly on the eastern seaboard. What we need to do is to get consistency between the regimes in the states, that’s an ideal.”
(Manager)
He was, anyhow, also very sceptical of the possibility of common regulation: “But reality is reality. The state will not give up its power to regulate, in which case the state regulation will be the second option.” An academic opinion given in this context was unanimous with this: “Absolutely it should be [harmonised] but it is unlikely in Australia. The current Federal Government is simply not interested. I have to be pessimistic about the prospects to finish short term harmonisation.” (Expert) After saying this, the interviewee explained his optimal solution to this matter if only the actual facts of good regulation would be considered:
“COAG has no powers, they have to agree. It is all voluntary, that’s the problem.
So they can meet and they can agree to try to create national standards but the fact is that it is only happening in a very limited way mainly with training, it’s the common training standards, you know, national competencies. So that is a good thing but I mean that if you look around Australia just now the systems are very different. The terminology is different, everything is different: disqualifying things, disqualifying periods, license categories, license fees, suitability tests, some states are doing fingerprinting, some are doing drug and alcohol testing others aren’t, so there is not much harmony. I think the federal department of justice should get the eight jurisdictions together and say let’s try and find a common act, common set of regulations we can agree on and my office will provide resources to co-ordinate that. At the moment there is no incentive for Queensland or any jurisdiction to communicate with their counterparts for harmony, you know.”
It is not just the streamlining that is the problem. In Belgium where the state structure is fragmented and political culture fractured, there is also a threat that the control which is now centralised could be split similarly with the present public police organisation. The industry as such has a strong desire to keep the regulation federal:
“It [regulation] should be federal, absolutely. In Belgium the party that now won the elections, wants a new [decentralising] state reform. But it has nothing to do with this kind of issues [private security regulation]. … It should remain on federal level.” (Industry expert)
Even in Sweden there were some strict opinions favouring a more comprehensive (centralised) structure for the regulation and especially its implementation as can be noticed from the following industry expert comment(Eriksson 2007a:28)117: “We want to have a total and streamlined control of those regulations there are concerning security companies, guards, crowd controllers and protection guards, as many of these matters overlap and the existing legislation is basically common.”
Based on the general and detailed opinions presented by the interviewees, there is clearly a practical argument in favour of the harmonisation of commercial security regulation which is overruled for the time being by historical models of administration boundaries and partisan attitudes. The comments on a streamlined regulation were very similar. The interviewees looked at the matter from a practical and operational point of view and in their opinion the best way to take care of the matter would be the creation of a federal/harmonised model. It was as obvious that they understood the political impossibility of this kind of set up for the time being. A basic summary (Table 30) of Table 30 Opinions on federalisation and harmonisation of regulation
Regulatory
regime Opinions Comments
Belgium Regulation should remain on federal level (centralised).
Decentralisation of governance should not include private security regulation.
New York I’d like to see it on federal level.
The minimums statutory standards should be federal applying to all the states.
There should be uniform (minimal) federal statutory standards on private security.
It would help if both state and federal authorities become more engaged on the issue
The threat of terrorism could be a tactic to enforce federal regulation.
Queensland COAG decided that harmonisation is a way to move forward in terms of providing a uniform industry.
A logical choice would be a single piece of regulation which covers all the states.
I would like to see a federal regulation with national competency standards.
Politically it is going to be really tough to convince the states of the superiority of this kind of arrangement.
Sweden We want to have a total and stream-lined control of those regulations there are.
We would want to evaluate the Finnish model with one authority having total responsibility.
the comments in this study shows the unanimous attitudes of the interviewees on these matters. Not a single opinion in favour of decentralised regulation was given.