Quote:
Originally Posted by russellw
It's not like the decision to use private security was, in itself, a bad decision given the speed with which a solution had to be in place. Two other States did exactly the same and either had better security companies or were just plain lucky in not having similar issues.
|
Yes, Yes it was a bad decision in fact it was negligent given what they knew.
The Victorian government was well aware that the Victorian security industry was a mess.
One of its policies at the 2018 election was to hold an enquiry into the industry.
From the government:
In October 2018, the Premier, The Hon. Daniel Andrews, announced the Victorian Government would conduct a review of the private security industry. The aim is to:
raise industry standards
improve safety of employees and the community
ensure workers are paid properly and fairly.
The Review will look at the current licencing and regulatory framework, the operation of the Private Security Act 2004 and its associated regulations. We need to determine what reforms are appropriate to improve the safety and security of all Victorians.
It will consider:
the prerequisites that are needed to participate in the industry
the training of employees
how compliance is monitored and enforced
employment practices and how workplace laws are applied.
The Review will deliver its final report and recommendations to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, the Treasurer and the Premier by December 2020.
With the above in mind the Labor government within an extremely short time frame around the 27th of March engaged a
non-approved security firm with a 30 million contract to provide hotel security, whose previous years revenue was around 3 million.
Unified Security had to scale up around 20x - 30x in a very short time frame.
This is negligence. Red flags galore.
Pure and simple.