Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Security & Guard Dog Detection Forum
Presented by Standards Australia
Objective:
A stakeholder forum was held at Standards Australia on the 22 June 2016 to determine from industry the need for a standard on Security and Guard Dog Detection. For list of attendees and organisations who attended the forum – see Appendix A.
The forum was opened by the National Sector Manager Bronwyn Walker and an introduction provided around the role of Standards Australia.
Presentations:
Mr. Mick Goodwin: CEO Dog Force Australia
Mr. Goodwin submitted the Project Proposal to Standards Australia around the need for standards within this sector prompting this key stakeholder forum. Mr. Goodwin presented on the need for standardisation within the Industry. The presentation included a summary of Mr. Goodwin’s background in the sector, expressing his genuine interest in the profession and industry. He has had dealing with the UK and the USA regarding protective measures in place for possible terrorist incidents.
Through Mr. Goodwin’s experience in law enforcement, he ascertained that there is a heavy reliance on the dog unit law enforcement, and that he has no expectation to replace law enforcement agencies, through the formulation of this standard. His intention is to develop a benchmark to be used in the capability or skills of dogs in a security role, this could, however, be extended to biosecurity and cadaver searches. There is currently no rules regarding non law enforcement dogs and that there is most certainly a need and cause for the regulation or qualification of the dogs used in the private sector.
Mr. Brian Moir: General Manager, Industry Regulation, Security Licensing & Enforcement Directorate (SLED)
Overview of the legislative requirements for the use of dogs by the security industry
The security activity and use of dogs is governed by security industry regulation, the Security Industry Act and well as Security Activity: the master license of the co-owner. All of the above mentioned factors play a role in governance. Mr. Moir expanded on this by explaining the definition of Security Activity. This being, the patrol or protection and guarding of a property with a dog.
2
This may go hand in hand with crowd control, where the relevant license is required, although self-limiting as it can only be used for that which it has been specified. This license would only pertain to the specifics for which it is issued and would place control in the manpower / guard dog handler.
Mr. Moir went on to explain the Security Dog Act: The act governs the use of the dog to screen events and not people. It is a breach of legislation should it not be adhered to. He spoke about master licenses and the fact that there would be certain criteria which would need to be met for licensees, alongside additional training. Within the NSW Police Force there is currently no training in relation to specifically training a dog, although there is training of the guards. Mr. Moir spoke of a definite need for minimum training for the license as well as ongoing training. The comparison was then made of the ability to drive using your driver’s license and to having a standard, emphasis being placed on the importance thereof.
Mr. Peter Moroney: Director, Investigations and Risk, Nemesis Consulting Group
Value to Industry
Mr. Moroney is a former Police Officer, Detective Sergeant for 10 years. He has also been in the Security Provider Industry for 7 years and has completed international work to counter terrorism. He has worked in an Advisory Role as a Security Risk Manager in Papua New Guinea.
Addressing the issue of value to industry, Mr. Moroney confirmed there is a great need for the regulation of the person handling the dog, by means of a standard over the dogs / police / members using the dog. He mentioned a dog set standard where there is compliancy which would have a knock on effect of greater satisfaction. He went on to add that having a standard, would weed out the “unscrupulous people in the industry” by creating a level of professionalism with a self-imposed aspect. Mr. Moroney also stressed how fundamentally important it is to have a standard which could govern the capability of the dog, which would have to be measured to the standard. He is of the opinion that there will be an overwhelming acceptance by the public, which will be greatly needed.
Q & A Session:
Questions were asked about general agreements regarding acceptable levels, whether the term “working” dog could be replaced with “security” dog and whether a comparison could be drawn between the private sector and the NSW Police Department and its governance.
Discussion on the document - Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal Detector Guidelines. There were also questions regarding the availability of this document and the IP of this document that already exists in the US and whether this would be available for use.
Action Item - The National Sector Manager at Standards Australia is contacting the organisation responsible for the above document to try and gain permission to use the document.
3
Group Discussion:
Bronwyn Walker reiterated the fact that there needed to be a clear definition of the scope of the project as well as the correct definition of a security guard patrol dog.
All agreed that the industry could see this working and that, with expert guidance and consultation with various individuals/organisations, this would be of huge benefit to everyone within the industry.
A very important point was raised by Mr Varant Meguerditchian, Senior Manager for the Stakeholder Engagement and Public Affairs team regarding the fact that it needs to be decided what the purpose of the dog is and what the dog needs to be able to do. Mr Meguerditchian went on to recommend drafting separate standards when trying to cover all working dogs, as there may be too many to incorporate into one standard. He also placed emphasis on the conformance structure which does not involve SA the actual Standard drafted does, reminding attendees that SA cannot enforce the standard but by consensus can draft and publish the document.
Forum outcome
It was agreed that there is a definite need for a standard to govern the industry. All agreed that certain measures needed to be put in place in order for this to be a success. It was also ascertained that no standard is future proofed. There is the option of covering various aspects with the intention of revising where necessary. There needs to be a base document on the expectation for the performance of the dog, which would set the starting point.
It was noted, that the following additional people / organisations would need to be
consulted during this process:
Fair trading departments
Working Dog Alliance
State Based Associations
David Morgan
Welfare Organisations / RSPCA
Large Organisations / End Users / Stadiums / Mines
Security Licensing & Enforcement Directorate - SLED Advisory Council
(Presentation slides are available with these summary notes)
For any questions or comments please contact:
Adam Stingemore
General Manager, Stakeholder Engagement and Public Affairs,
Standards Australia
P: (02) 9237 6011
4
Appendix A
Attendee Organisation
Bronwyn Walker Standards Australia
Varant Meguerditchian Standards Australia
Peter Moroney Nemesis Consulting Group
Darren Smith NSW Police Force – Inspector/State Protection group dog unit
Mick Goodwin Dog Force Australia
Leanne O’Mara Dog Force Australia
Dave Wright Dog Force Australia
Shari Forbes University of Technology Sydney
Jennie Nelson Western Sydney University
Brian Moir NSW Police Force - Security, Licensing & Enforcement Directorate
Claire Hobern Standards Australia
Vince Squadrito Allianz Australia Insurance
Max Wilson Arts, Communications, Finance Industry & Property Services
Darren Barrett Unimet Security Pty Ltd
Mark Pascale Security Providers Association of Australia
Chris Delaney Australian Security Industry Association Ltd (ASIAL)
Suzette Po-Williams Central Monitoring Services Pty Ltd
