Frontline
Much more to do in support of locking down By Konrad Buczynski Industryrisk.com.au
12 | Australian Security Magazine
P
lanning for a truly ‘effective’ lockdown security regime can be a complex and challenging issue, especially within Australian workplaces, where building design has not historically been predicated upon security factors. Perhaps because of this, and despite the heightened threat of terrorism within the community, many organisations have done little in preparation for a serious incident, such as one involving an active shooter. The reasons for this may vary widely; limitations caused by infrastructure, and a requirement for a high degree of public access are two key factors that can hamper planning. Gaining explicit management support to practice realistic drills may also be difficult, and adequate resourcing may not be available to address the most critical needs. However, even those that have implemented good lockdown arrangements would invariably agree that there is no solution that approaches anywhere close to perfect. Even when infrastructure and funding prove favourable and forthcoming, the nuances of any given scenario would invariably expose vulnerabilities in established processes and systems. A disgruntled insider also has the potential to render any capability that is effective, largely redundant, as various recent events have shown. Those that have seen an example of what might be regarded as a best-practice lockdown regime are in the minority. Indeed, many businesses are still in the early
process of considering how to adjust their ‘AS 3745-2010 Planning for emergencies in facilities’ style plans to account for such a regime in a procedural sense. This is exacerbated by volunteer-staffed Emergency Control Organisations (ECOs), the potential for key person/coordinator absence, and an unwillingness for management to address the nature of the threat directly with staff. The ANZCTC ‘Active Armed Offender Guidelines for Crowded Places’ [1] offer a helpful, albeit limited ‘Escape, Hide, Tell’ approach to personal protection, and other international jurisdictions also offer approaches based loosely on the ‘run, hide, fight’ concept. Much expertise will have gone into developing this simplistic approach, and it carries a lot of merit; a simple message is key in a confused situation. The onus must then fall to those that operate facilities to take this to the next logical degree, rather than assuming an ‘everyone for themselves’ doctrine, should the worst occur. People should be entitled to expect to have places/routes to escape to/through, or have been instructed on locations to hide, prior to such an event occurring. It is after all a reasonably foreseeable, if not a frequently realised, security risk. The absence of advanced planning may be somewhat explained by dismissiveness within segments of the Australian community for the potential for an active shooter incident to occur (due to the lack of a significant history of such events here). It can thus be a difficult task to directly engage and