Together Stronger: A New Zealand security sector network?

Chief editor Nicholas Dynon writes that a more ‘networked’ approach between the security sector’s industry, professional and academic organisations could give the sector a more powerful voice.

On 20 June, 25 representatives from New Zealand’s security sector came together in Auckland to discuss the idea of a network or ‘collective’ of sector representative organisations. It was a diverse crowd, covering information, physical and personnel security, risk management, business continuity, and everything in between.

Participants included current and/ or former office bearers of key sector member organisations, including the NZSA, New Zealand Defence Industry Association (NZDIA), ASIS New Zealand Chapter, New Zealand Institute of Private Investigators (NZIPI), New Zealand Institute of Intelligence Professionals (NZIIP), ISC2, RiskNZ, and the New Zealand Information Security Forum, as well as academics from Massey University’s Centre for Defence and Security Studies, Waikato University’s New Zealand Institute of Security and Crime Science, and the University of Auckland.

In a series of discussions led by Massey University’s Professor Rouben Azizian, participants debated New Zealand’s current security outlook, the challenges facing the non-government security sector – including the security industry – in its engagement with government and the broader community, and the opportunities for a more ‘networked’ way of working – perhaps via a formal collective of representative organisations in the sector (including those mentioned above).

The landscape

In 2001, New Zealand’s Cabinet decided that an ‘all hazards – all risks’ approach be taken to national security. Accordingly, New Zealand’s capacity to deal with the full range of national security challenges, states the National Security System Handbook, requires a system “able to leverage partnerships between government agencies, local government, private companies, and individuals.”

The security of New Zealand is contributed to by an active and talented non-government security sector made up of a range of private suppliers, academic institutions and industry organisations. The sector supports and complements various government defence, national security, law enforcement, public safety and emergency management agencies in protecting New Zealanders, their assets and their information.

While the role of government agencies in New Zealand’s security is widely acknowledged and respected, it would be fair to say that the nongovernment security sector’s critical role remains challenged by a lack of understanding and acknowledgement within broader national discourse and – critically – within central government.

Challenge: At arm’s length

The privatisation of aspects of security and the emergence of a security industry has occurred in earnest only since around the 1980s. The industry’s relative youth and the immaturity of the legislative and administrative regimes designed to regulate it have arguably constituted ongoing barriers to the willingness of government – and particularly law enforcement agencies – to work with the industry to the level and extent that might be found in comparable jurisdictions internationally.

It’s a situation not helped by the recent State Services Commission (SSC) Report of the Inquiry into the Use of External Security Consultants by Government Agencies, published in the wake of the Southern Response controversy. Although the inquiry found no evidence of widespread inappropriate surveillance by external security consultants on behalf of government agencies, it has nevertheless led to agency-specific reviews advocating increased caution in terms of involving and communicating with “outside groups or private companies.”

The involvement of industry in the supply of products and services to (and in lieu of) government and law enforcement agencies is critical to New Zealand’s domestic security, yet the nongovernment security sector continues to be kept at arm’s length. This impacts on the ability of the government and non-government sectors to maximise the benefits of collaboration in the interests of New Zealand’s security.

Lively discussion at the 20 June meeting.

Challenge: The perception gap

The NZ Police, NZ Customs, Defence Force and other government security agencies enjoy a generally positive reputation among the public. According to the New Zealand Defence Force Annual Report 2014, for example, an independent public opinion poll conducted on the NZDF showed that “New Zealanders continue to be favourable towards the NZDF.” In the 2014 New Zealand Crime & Safety Survey, 73% of respondents rated NZ Police as excellent/good, and 19% as fair.

Ironically, the picture is somewhat different for New Zealand’s nongovernment security sector. Public perceptions of the private security industry are regularly skewed by media sensationalism around such issues as the use of unreasonable force by bar security staff, exploitation by unscrupulous employers, and privacy-breaching surveillance practices. As a low-skilled, low-paid, lightly-regulated occupation, security guarding is generally perceived by society in unattractive terms.

With guarding constituting the ‘public face’ of the industry, there is also a lack of public awareness of the depth and breadth of the industry beyond manned services. Far less known is the industry’s provision of security consulting, security and building systems integration, identity management, critical national infrastructure protection, monitoring centres, risk management, fraud examination, big data analytics, and a range of other unsung services.

The disparity between public perceptions of government and nongovernment actors within the security sector compromises the ability of the latter to be taken seriously and to build up a trusted sector ‘brand’. These challenges suggest that there is a need to change how the non-government security sector is broadly regarded by government and by the market.

The opportunity

The security sector is represented by a range of industry, professional and academic organisations that each play an important role in advancing the interests of their members. Communication and cooperation between these organisations is generally positive but ultimately ad hoc. A more ‘networked’ way of engaging would likely benefit the sector as a whole.

In particular, a networked approach may better position the sector to address the shared challenges confronting it, to present a singular yet more representative voice, and to better tell the story of the sector as a respected contributor to New Zealanders’ security and a trusted partner of government.

Exactly what a sector network might look like – and how it might support and enhance the work already being done by its organisations – is something worth exploring. And there are plenty of successful examples from overseas to draw from for inspiration.

One example is the U.K. Security Commonwealth, an umbrella organisation of independent membership bodies across the security industry. It provides a “forum to consult and cooperate in the common interest and in the promotion of professionalism, good practice and information sharing to enhance UK security.”

Its membership includes most of the major security membership organisations in the U.K., such as ASIS UK, the Security Institute, the International Professional Security Association, the Association of Security Consultants, the Institute of Private Investigators, and the Cross-sector Security and Safety Communications, the National Security Inspectorate, the British Security Industry Association, and a host of others.

In the U.S., the Upper Mid-West Security Alliance (UMWSA) is made up of a membership that includes ASIS Minnesota Chapter, ISACA, ASC2, Business Continuity Planners Association, Cloud Security Alliance and others. Its mission is “to unite upper Midwest security-related organizations in a trusted community for interdisciplinary collaboration and education.”

A New Zealand ‘security sector network’ could be focused on objectives that might include reducing barriers to – and promoting – government-tonon-government cooperation; raising the profile of security within public discourse and government policy; and influencing positive public perceptions of the nongovernment security sector.

Where this idea goes is ultimately up to the sector and to the hard-working industry and professional organisations that represent it. Based on the insights, energy and levels of support that characterised the discussion of June 20, I certainly look forward to the unfolding journey.