New Zealand Security Magazine

The qualification develops and advances critical research, critical thinking and writing, analytical best practice as well as exploring relevant twentieth and twenty-first century intelligence operations. It is aimed at those wishing to develop advanced critical skills in relation to their existing or prospective intelligence sector careers in New Zealand.

Graduates of this year long programme will possess an advanced knowledge of intelligence analysis processes, be grounded in relevant previous operational intelligence experiences and have a critical understanding of the ethical and professional issues involved.

The programme of study consists of two 30-credit courses:

Qualification Requirements

Semester ONE, 294741: Intelligence in the International Security Environment

A critical examination of intelligence theory and practice, focusing on key concepts and methodologies of intelligence collection and analysis, analytical tools, frameworks and concepts applied to investigations and operations in the contemporary international security environment.

Course Controller:

Dr Rhys Ball, Centre for Defence and Security Studies (Auckland)

Semester TWO, 294744: Intelligence Operations

A comprehensive grounding in the operational intelligence environment in the second half of the 20th century, into the 21st century. Participants will consider the development of intelligence practices both in New Zealand and around the world, from the evolution of intelligence contributions from the end of World War Two, to the intelligence challenges of the 2020s. Intelligence operations are critically reviewed, including intelligence success and failure, espionage against friends and allies, and policing and private intelligence formats.

Course Controller:

Dr John Battersby, Senior Fellow, Centre for Defence and Security Studies (Wellington)

To enroll in this qualification, students must have been awarded or qualified for a relevant Bachelor's degree, or be able to demonstrate scholarly work in conjunction with extensive relevant professional experience for Admission with Equivalent Status.

For further information, please contact John: j.m.battersby@massey.ac.nz, or Rhys: r.ball@massey.ac.nz.

NZ S M

Nick Dynon Chief Editor

Nick has written for NZSM since 2013. He writes on all things security, but is particularly fascinated with the fault lines between security and privacy, and between individual, enterprise and national security.

Prior to NZSM he clocked up over 20 years experience in various border security and military roles.

Contact Details:

Chief Editor, Nick Dynon

Phone: + 64 (0) 223 663 691

Email: nick@defsec.net.nz

Publisher, Craig Flint

Phone: + 64 (0)274 597 621

Email: craig@defsec.net.nz

Postal and delivery address: 27 West Crescent, Te Puru 3575, Thames, RD5, New Zealand

Kia ora and welcome to the August-September 2025 issue of New Zealand Security Magazine! In this issue we provide tips on nominating for the NZ Security Awards, explore what James Bond has to do with layered security, recognise Saved a Life Medal recipients, and much, much more!.

Firstly, a big thanks also to our wonderful advertisers! Our advertisers are committed to our industry. Through their sponsorship of this magazine they play an important role by contributing to a vibrant and informed security sector.

Inside this issue, we mark International Security Officers’ Day 2025 (24 July) by recognising security officers who have in recent months been awarded the NZSA Saved a Life Medal. These are security professionals who have literally saved a person’s life in either preventing or responding to a life threatening event. We acknowledge these heroes.

Some great guest contributor content in this issue, including a thoughtprovoking piece by Dr Alexander Howard from the University of Sydney on how Australia’s media and politics have distanced the Christchurch shooter from the domestic conditions that helped shape his worldview.

In this issue, we’re honoured to be joined again by Alarm Watch’s Technical Manager Graeme McKenzie who explores the pitfalls of IP-only alarm monitoring. Many clients assume that if their alarm system has a backup battery, the alarm monitoring will keep working as long as the alarm is running. It’s a dangerous assumption, he writes.

Also inside, HID’s Steve Katanas argues that with physical and cybersecurity converging, organisations adopting cloud-based systems with mobile access, biometrics, and MFA stand to be better protected. How? Read on.

In other articles, we take a look at the just-launched New Zealand Biometric Processing Privacy Code, Auckland CBD’s new police station, Genetec’s new NZ distributor, a visit by Lee Odess, this year’s NZ OSPAs winners, the Top 40 Global Thought Leaders in Security & Life Safety’s first kiwi, and – yes – how Bond villains can teach us a thing or two about deterrence, detection, delay, and response!

Finally, get those nominations in for the 2025 New Zealand Security Awards! There are 19 categories up for grabs. As has become an annual thing in the lead-up to the Awards, I provide my tips on how to do a nomination that does good service to your deserving nominee. Don’t leave it to the last moment!

There’s all this and much more to explore in this issue of NZSM. Also, if you haven’t already, consider subscribing to our to-your-inbox eNewsletter THE BRIEF. It’s a great way to keep up-to-date with the latest. Details on the Defsec website.

Nicholas Dynon Auckland

Disclaimer:

The information contained in this publication is given in good faith and has been derived from sources believed to be reliable and accurate. However, neither the publishers nor any person involved in the preparation of this publication accept any form of liability whatsoever for its contents including advertisements, editorials, opinions, advice or information or for any consequences from its use.

Upcoming Issue

October/November 25

Professional, Business & Industry Awards Accountants, Lawyers, Business Managers and Consultants

facebook.com/defsecmedia x.com/DefsecNZ

linkedin.com/company/ defsec-media-limited

Five Essential Factors to Future-Proof Physical Access Control Systems

Physical and cybersecurity are converging, and organisations adopting cloud-based systems with mobile access, biometrics, and MFA stand to be better protected, writes Steve Katanas, Regional Head, Mature Markets, ANZ, Physical Access Control Solutions, HID.

As digital and physical workplaces continue to converge, organisations in Australia and New Zealand face challenges with maintaining the safety of both work environments. For example, while an abundance of cloudbased services and AI agents makes updating security systems faster and easier than ever, many physical access control solutions (PACS) may struggle to facilitate those updates, leaving security gaps that have the potential to cripple businesses.

This is because, even though PACS have long been used, the growing importance and prevalence of integrating physical access systems into broader security governance frameworks has become difficult for companies that still rely on legacy systems.

To keep pace with ongoing technological advances, organisations need the following five essential factors to future-proof their physical access control systems.

1. If you haven’t already, adopt cloud-based and mobile access

According to the HID 2025 State of Security and Identity report, 37% of global security leaders have already deployed mobile credentials, with another 32% planning to deploy them in the near future. Respondents cite better security and greater convenience and operational efficiency as reasons to switch, as well as the flexibility and

scalability of these solutions that can be easily managed anytime, anywhere.

The adoption of cloud-based and mobile access enables stronger security protection through multifactor authentication (MFA). Unlike keycards, mobile credentials cannot be easily stolen or duplicated, improving security and reducing lost credential costs.

MFA provides another layer of security by combining biometrics with

mobile credentials or biometrics with one-time passcodes, for example. This helps to further protect companies and workers, prevents credential theft, and lets organisations tailor access to buildings and company assets based on risk levels, ensuring stricter control over sensitive areas like executive offices.

For organisations that still prefer the use of keycards, it is essential to choose ones that use

modern cryptography and advanced encryption for the maximum level of security.

2. Connect access control with intelligent systems

In the digital economy, there are new opportunities for enterprises in Australia and New Zealand to expand the use of access data in building management. A recent report shows that approximately 53% of respondents integrated building occupancy and use with their access control configurations to collect more insights that enabled data-driven decision making.

For 37% of respondents, Internet of Things integration enabled them to connect access control with other intelligent systems like lighting, HVAC and occupancy sensors. This is a key trend influencing buying decisions to enable more cohesive and efficient building operations.

3. Implement systems that promote interoperability and open standards

PACS were once renowned for proprietary technology that limited integration. However, the open

supervised device protocol (OSDP) has accelerated the use of open standards, which is improving security and compatibility

A key issue for many organisations is achieving and maintaining compatibility with legacy technologies, integration with existing security platforms and supporting technological innovation.

OSDP offers simpler installation of new technologies supported by AES-128 encryption, bidirectional communication, tamper detection and seamless device integration for enterprises.

4. Focus on cybersecurity

The ongoing and increased risks of cyberattack mean organisations of all sizes understand the imperative to keep pace with cybersecurity best practices. Unfortunately, some enterprise systems may still lack critical protections that keep organisations safe from external threats.

Networked access control systems enhance efficiency and integration by connecting controllers, readers and central servers. However, this interconnectedness can introduce potential security gaps.

As digital and physical security continue to merge, organisations must keep a sharp focus on cybersecurity by implementing proper configurations, enforcing strict permissions and applying regular software updates to maintain robust protection.

5. Ensure security systems are ESG compliant

Australia has now adopted mandatory environmental, social and governance (ESG) compliance reporting for enterprises. For this reason, and to better manage the impact of rising energy costs, businesses are prioritising energy-efficient access control systems with features like low-power hardware and remote management.

In the security industry, the requirement for ESG compliance has led to an increased focus on the supply chain, with professionals seeking solutions that minimise resource use , reduce consumables, and generate less waste.

The HID 2025 State of Security and Identity report has revealed that three-quarters of organisations now seriously consider sustainability when selecting security solutions, with 54% actively seeking technologies that minimise energy use and support green building efforts. Additionally, 53% said that sustainability is a top priority when considering upgrades to existing security systems.

The future of PACS is already here. The challenge and opportunity for organisations is how to futureproof this technology for ongoing technological evolution.

The answer is sustainability-focused security that uses cloud-based solutions and mobile access, integrates biometrics with multi-factor authentication, has a foundation of open standards like OSDP and an engine room of AI and automation.

Organisations that embrace these factors into a unified system to address both their physical and cybersecurity strategy will not only be more secure workplaces now but will also be much better positioned for long-term success no matter how much technology evolves in the future.

Nominating for the 2025 New Zealand Security Awards

If you’re thinking you have a colleague who might be worthy of a New Zealand Security Award, nominate them, writes chief editor Nicholas Dynon, but make sure your nomination is a compliant and competitive one.

Nicholas

Dynon is chief editor of NZSM, and a widely published commentator on New Zealand’s defence, national security and private security sectors.

Nominations for the 2025 New Zealand Security Industry Awards are due to close Friday 15 August., This year will culminate in a gala awards dinner at the Grand Millennium, Auckland, on Friday 26 September.

For the past few years now I’ve published an article in the August issues of NZSM to provide advice –from my perspective – on how to make your nomination count, and with this year’s nomination deadline looming it makes sense to again reiterate the tips and tricks. If you’re planning to nominate, you should continue reading!

When I sat on the judging panel some years ago, I tended to find myself on the one-hand inspired by the many impressive nominations I saw, yet frustrated by the abundance of pretty ordinary ones.

In the vast majority of cases it wasn’t that the nominee wasn’t up to scratch, but rather that the nomination itself was either non-compliant, poorly put together, or inadequately evidenced.

Nominating a colleague for an award is a good thing – for two reasons. Firstly, excellence should be recognised, and outstanding individuals within the industry should be celebrated. Secondly, quite simply, the more nominations submitted in a particular category the more competitive the pool and the more worthy the winner. That’s a good thing for the industry.

In this article, I offer my perspectives on what makes a competitive nomination, including some tips on how to ensure you’ve given your nominee an even chance of being among the finalists.

Ensure your nomination is compliant

If you’ve taken the effort to identify a colleague for nomination, then it’s important that you make that nomination count. A good place to start is to ensure that your nomination is fully compliant with the Conditions of Entry (Terms and Conditions). If you don’t know what these are, it’s worthwhile acquainting yourself with them.

Golden rule. Make sure your nomination is prepared and submitted well in advance of the close off date (5.00pm on Friday 15 August 2025). Late entries are not accepted, and you don’t want to take the time to prepare a nomination only for it to be disqualified at the starting blocks.

The other key dates to keep in mind are April 2024 to June 2025. Nominations must relate to work, employment or activity carried out within this 15-month period. By all means mention relevant pre-April 2024 milestones for backstory and context, but avoid going too far down that rabbit hole. The judges are required to assess work and achievements that fall specifically within the past 15 months.

Each nomination must contain a fully completed nomination form in the format provided, including a testimonial not exceeding 1,200

characters describing why “the nominee has the attributes and professional experience that would make them a deserving recipient of the award”. Supporting information may be uploaded with each nomination but limited to two files per nomination with a maximum file size of 2MB per file.

I’ve seen too many nominations that failed to follow the required format. Worse still, I’ve seen too many where the nomination was nothing more than a short paragraph two or three sentences in length. Something like this gives the judges nothing to assess. It’s an immediate fail.

The most disappointing example of this I’ve seen was in relation to a nominee who I believe would likely have won their category if their nominator had gone to the effort of writing more than just a sentence or two. In the interests of fairness, the judges can only consider information in the papers before them even if they are otherwise aware of the exploits of the nominee.

Put in the effort; aim for excellence

The New Zealand Security Awards are all about recognising and celebrating excellence. If you don’t

SECUURITY OFFICER OF THE YEAR

aim for and achieve excellence in your preparation of a nomination, then it logically follows that the judges will struggle to see excellence in your nominee.

I recommend that you read the tips on the NZSA website’s Nomination Information and Conditions of Entry pages. They contain useful tips.

One of these is to directly address each of the ‘recognition requirements’ specified in the category criteria in a clear and concise manner. For example, in the Guarding Sector Trainee of the Year category, the category criteria require the individual to demonstrate that:

This award recognises an individual who has made outstanding progress in professional development and training for their role in the guarding sector of the security industry. They will have displayed commitment towards training and achieving results though the NZQA national qualification framework. The recipient will be a person who is self-motivated, sets goals and aspires to progress their security career.

The NZSA recommends that responses to each of the recognition requirements be addressed individually, in the order listed within the Category Criteria (with the use of headings or bullet points to ensure they are easy to follow), and as clearly and concisely as possible.

If we were to split the above example into its individual recognition requirements, I’d suggest that this results in:

1. Progress in professional development and training,

2. Achieving results through the NZQA framework, and

3. Self-motivated, and career goaloriented.

Read the category criteria carefully. The two trainee categories, for example, require that the nominee has “displayed commitment towards training and achieving results through the NZQA national qualification framework.” If you’re thinking of nominating someone for this category, confirm that they are indeed displaying commitment towards NZQA training

rather than forms of training not relevant to that framework.

In order to systematically and fairly assess nominations, the judges award points in relation to each of the specified recognition requirements. It is therefore very important that each one is responded to.

It’s also important to demonstrate exactly how a nominee meets each of the recognition requirements by way of specific examples, stories and references. These can be supported by attachments to the nomination. Note that the Testimonial field on the online nomination form allows for a maximum of only 1,200 characters, so make the most of attachments (two documents with a maximum file size of 2MB).

If this sounds like a whole lot of effort, that’s because it is! The judges do not want to be reading War and Peace, but putting a nomination together does require you to get a reasonable amount of information across in a convincing way. Don’t underestimate the task. Be prepared to write, but stay on message. Take care to avoid getting side-tracked with superfluous or unnecessary information and detail. None of the categories require the nominee to be family-focused or enjoy footy or boating in their spare time.

Don’t undersell your nominee, but be careful to avoid making hyperbolic statements about them without corroborating evidence. Overuse of superlatives and hyperbole cheapens a nomination and calls into question its credibility.

For example, if your customer champion nominee is indeed “viewed as providing a substantial and quantifiable benefit to the customers business operations”, then how so? What are some specific examples of the quantifiable benefits your nominee has provided?

Think about the type of evidence you should be submitting to back up your claims. The evidence should be as objective as possible. Relevant metrics/statistics and external stakeholder testimonials can constitute compelling evidence, but they can take time to collect – so don’t leave your nomination to the last minute.

I concur with the NZSA’s recommendation that you get your nomination proof read by a third party prior to it being submitted, ensuring that it reads well, addresses all of the category criteria and effectively ‘sells’ the merits of the nominee. This is critically important – a second pair of eyes can make all the difference.

Also, be aware that there may have been some slight changes to the assessment descriptors in some of the categories since the last time you put together a nomination. Make sure you’re nominating your nominee against the current criteria!

A word about categories

There are 18 categories to choose from, which seems like a lot. But given the diversity of sectors and roles within the industry, it’s not a long list. Take care to select the most appropriate category for your nominee.

That being said, sometimes a nominee might – in your opinion –be a potential contender across more than one category. There’s no harm in submitting separate nominations for the one individual across multiple categories, but if you do just make sure that each of the nominations are tailored to the specific category criteria. For the NZSA, getting the categories right is a perennial challenge, and in recent years there’s been plenty of tweaking in this regard. Categories such as ‘Cash Services Professional of the Year’ and ‘Visionary Leadership’, for example, were jettisoned a couple of years back in favour of the newer categories of ‘Customer Champion of the Year’ and ‘Security Specialist of the Year’.

Last year’s “Outstanding MSD Placement Candidate of the Year” category, which had replaced 2023’s “Outstanding Skills for Industry Employee of the Year” category, has been axed this year. This has resulted in there being one less category this year compared to last.

Such changes occur for any number of reasons, including changes to industry programmes, evolutionary changes in practices, feedback from the industry and whether or not the category attracts a sufficient number of nominations. Change is the natural order of things, so don’t assume a category you’ve previously nominated someone in is either unchanged or still there at all.

If in doubt, have a go!

There can be a lot of preconceived ideas when it comes to the awards. Some people see them though a tall poppy syndrome lens, while others see them as little more than a marketing exercise. Such perceptions are unreasonably cynical and wrong.

Disappointingly, there are some cynics in the industry who peddle the untruth that awards sponsors are somehow more likely to end up winning an award. If you look at the list of 2023 or 2024 sponsors, you’ll see

that many of them didn’t actually field any nominees or record a win. Such baseless speculation is dumb, and it does a disservice to the industry and a dishonour to the cynic.

There also exists a misperception that only nominees who are ‘super heroes’ win awards. This is false. In the main, finalists and winners are really just people who meet the category criteria really well through their commitment and hard work.

For the Patrol Officer and Security Officer of the Year categories specifically, the criteria do state that the award recognises excellence, commitment and professionalism “including service to customers and outstanding acts.” And here we do often find amazing stories of bravery, compassion, and heroism, although they are not a prerequisite.

Results in recent years do seem to indicate that “outstanding acts” tend to trump “service to customers”, and the measure of “outstanding” is often pegged to the level of danger faced by the nominee during the act in question.

In Australia, such acts are covered by the Australian Security Valour Medal (ASVM), a category within the Australian Security Medals Foundation (ASMF) Awards, which, in

turn, is part of the annual Australian Security Industry Awards. In my opinion, acts of valour or heroism are indeed worthy of a medal, and – as I wrote last year – I believe there is a case for a similar annual medals-based award in Aotearoa New Zealand in accordance with a framework similar to the ASMF.

It’s worthwhile noting, however, that recipients of the NZSA’s Saved a Life Medal (which are awarded at times during the year) will be honoured with a roll call at the New Zealand Security Awards night and automatically included as a nominee under the appropriate award category.

Lastly, if you haven’t nominated someone for an award previously, have a go. The New Zealand Security Awards is an important annual event not just because it’s a stage upon which to acknowledge high performing colleagues. It’s a showcase of our industry to the broader community, and an enduring record of the wonderful stories of excellence expressed in the nominations you submit.

Make this the year you get nominating. If you’re thinking about nominating a colleague but you’re a little unsure whether to do so, just do it!

Excellence in security celebrated at the 2025 New Zealand OSPAs

The fourth annual New Zealand Outstanding Security Performance Awards (OSPAs) took place in Auckland on 27 June 2025, recognising inspirational kiwi security professionals.

Security professionals from across New Zealand gathered to recognise and celebrate excellence with awards being presented across eleven categories by OSPAs founder Professor Martin Gill.

Held annually in several countries and regions globally, the OSPAs are the global benchmark for the recognition of excellence in the global security industry, recognising and rewarding companies, people and innovation across the security sector.

“The standard of nominations received this year was again exceptionally high, making it a real challenge for the judging panel,” said Professor Gill. All winners and finalists should be immensely proud of their achievements.

“All category winners will progress to the Global OSPAs for an opportunity to gain international recognition, while the Lifetime Achievement Award recipient will be honoured with induction into the Security Hall of Fame.”

It’s the fourth year of the OSPAs in Aotearoa, with the inaugural event having been held in 2022. RISQ Australasia’s Bruce Couper again hosted the combined ASIS Certification Dinner and OSPAs event with his trademark wit, humour, and professional gravitas, and the Sandman, Marcus Winter, performed his amazing artistry in front of a spellbound audience.

Following the recognition of those who had either gained or renewed their

ASIS Board Certifications over the past year, the evening’s focus swung towards the announcement of OSPA category winners.

And the 2025 NZ OSPA winners (and their winner’s summaries) are:

Outstanding In-House Security Manager/Director

Ellie Moriarty – SkyCity

Ellie Moriarty, Security Manager at SkyCity Auckland, has revolutionised security operations with over 26 years of dedicated service. She introduced advanced technologies like bodyworn cameras and stab-proof security controls, significantly enhancing safety.

Her strategic partnerships and unwavering commitment to safety have made her an invaluable asset, ensuring a secure and welcoming environment for all SkyCity visitors. Judges commented that Ellie is a true leader who has achieved outstanding outcomes.

Ellie has revolutionised security, pioneering technology and partnerships, ensuring safety.

Judges commend her leadership and outstanding achievements in creating a secure, welcoming environment.

Outstanding Contract Security Manager/Director

Nicholas Dynon – Optic Security Group

Nicholas Dynon leads Optic Security Group’s security consultancy practice, a role he has performed as Enterprise Security Risk Manager and, since December 2024, as Group Brand Strategy & Innovation Director.

Through the quality of his outputs, evidence-based approach, and focus on knowledge production, Nick has profoundly influenced the business operations of his customer organisations, as well as influencing his security consultant peers within New Zealand’s security industry, and internationally. Judges felt that Nick’s deep technical knowledge coupled with on the ground grass roots experience makes him stand out.

Nicholas Dynon leads Optic Security Group’s consultancy, shaping

industry standards with expertise, evidence-based insights, and grassroots experience. Judges commented on his profound influence and standout technical knowledge.

Outstanding Security Team Freight Screening Team – Secureflight

The Secureflight freight team are leaders in x-ray interpretation and security screening within the freight forwarding and aviation industry, having established global partnerships and showcasing skill-based performance through compliance of Zealand’s national regulations.

Their aim, to ensure the appropriate security controls measures have been applied to International outbound Cargo and Mail to safeguard Civil Aviation against acts of deliberate and unlawful interference. Judge’s commented on their innovation coupled with great execution for the client and the delivery team.

The Secureflight freight team excels in x-ray interpretation and security screening, ensuring compliance and safeguarding aviation. Judges praise their innovation and execution.

Outstanding Contract Security Company (Guarding)

FIRST Security

FIRST Security’s aim is to be the most ethical, trusted provider – putting people and clients first. By combining

skilled people, smart processes, and innovative technology, they deliver safer, reliable security services.

In the past two years alone, their proven ability to deliver and continuously improve has helped them win over $23 million in new contracts – while retaining another $34 million in existing business. Judges said their submission highlighted they were passionate about quality and committed to providing good value.

FIRST Security prioritises ethics, trust, and client-focused service, combining skilled people, smart processes, and technology. Judges commented on their quality, value, and impressive contract success.

Outstanding Security Training Initiative

National Training Programme created by Michelle Macdonald –Secureflight

Secureflight entrusted their Training Manager Michelle Macdonald to create a workforce founded on a training programme that not only delivered outstanding practices but set a benchmark in excellence.

Through embedding literacy, creating development plans, upskilling instructors, aligning and producing Secureflight nationally recognised certifications, their training has become influential in producing competent, credible and responsive staff. Judges commented that their training was innovative and customised for a unique environment.

Secureflight’s Training Manager

Michelle Macdonald developed an innovative training programme, setting excellence benchmarks and producing skilled, responsive staff. Judges praised its customisation and influence.

Outstanding Security Installer/ Integrator

Advanced Security Group

Advanced Security is a national security integrator dedicated to providing exceptional security solutions for their clients. Their primary strengths include extensive security expertise, innovative technology applications, and an unwavering commitment to customer service.

They excel in highly regulated and complex environments by employing a systematic approach supported by the ISO 9001 quality management systems. Judges said they had excellent engagement and a wide service base which is very comprehensive.

Advanced Security excels as a national security integrator, leveraging expertise, innovation, and supported by ISO 9001 systems. Judges praised their engagement and comprehensive service base.

Outstanding Security Partnership

Asset Upgrade Project –Optic Security Group and Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University Wellington

The Asset Upgrade Project has taken the Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University Wellington electronic security system environment from one where the University routinely had CCTV or controllers go down and create significant reactive work and

risk, to an environment that is stable and functioning well.

Working together the University security team and Optic Security Group have put in place outcomes that have seen a marked decrease in hardware failures, with any hardware failures now managed as part of a formal asset replacement programme. Judges felt that the creation of a twoway street of mutual trust and respect, enabled continuous improvement and mutual learning and growth.

The Asset Upgrade Project stabilised Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University Wellington’s security systems, reducing failures through strategic collaboration. Judges praised its trust-driven continuous improvement and mutual learning and growth.

Outstanding Security Officer

Shaun Laifone – Global Security

Shaun Laifone, Supervisor at Princes Wharf for Global Security, exemplifies frontline leadership in action. With over seven years on-site, Shaun is trusted by clients and staff alike, known for his calm, decisive responses – even during critical incidents like a nearby shooting. His professionalism, integrity, and commitment to service excellence have elevated their standards and reinforced strong community and client relationships. Judges felt that the entry showed demonstrable performance of a highly effective security operator combining mutually beneficial front line activity with back end operational oversight.

Shaun Laifone, Global Security Supervisor, demonstrates exceptional frontline leadership, earning trust through professionalism, integrity, and decisive responses. Judges commend his operational oversight and strong community relationships.

Outstanding Female Security

Professional

Chelsea Wallis – Optic Security Group

Chelsea’s professional trajectory has been impressive, advancing from Executive Assistant to Office Manager to Strategic Projects Lead, and now serving as Key Account and Customer Experience Manager. Chelsea consistently demonstrates a strong work ethic, an insatiable curiosity for learning, and a growth mindset that set her apart in every project and challenge she takes on.

Chelsea’s ability to influence client operations, build effective relationships, and add value is delivering superior client satisfaction and security outcomes. Judges felt that the supporting comments clearly articulate the value that Chelsea brings to her role and the sector.

Chelsea’s rapid career progression reflects her strong work ethic, curiosity, and growth mindset. Judges applaud her influence, relationship-building, and impact on client satisfaction and security outcomes.

Outstanding Young Security

Professional

Ruth Tongotongo – Beca Applied Technologies

engagement, and business acumen. Her qualities of determination, curiosity, and charisma ensure her continued success, promising a bright future. Ruth has made an outstanding start to her security consultancy journey, consistently demonstrating a growing blend of technical competence, client engagement, and business acumen.

Lifetime Achievement

Kenneth Eccles

Ken Eccles’ continuing contributions to crime detection, law enforcement, national security, emergency response and safer communities throughout New Zealand are unparalleled. His technical innovations in audio and telephone interceptions, tracking devices, wireless transmissions and CCTV have earned him respect internationally.

He was the recipient of the Queen’s 1990 Commemoration Medal, the New Zealand Police Certificate of Merit for technical skills, administrative ability and operational competence displayed in establishing the Police Technical Support Unit, and the New Zealand Customs Comptroller Award for his contribution to the reputation and effectiveness of the New Zealand Customs Service.

Judge’s said Ken is an unassuming and silent practitioner who has touched multiple facets of the industry, leaving people, processes, and products all the better for his involvement.

For more information about the award winners, view the winner summaries on the OSPAs website.

Ruth has made an outstanding start to her security consultancy journey, consistently demonstrating a growing blend of technical competence, client

The pitfalls of IP-only alarm monitoring – and how to do better

Many clients assume that if their alarm system has a backup battery, the alarm monitoring will keep working as long as the alarm is running. It’s a dangerous assumption, writes Graeme McKenzie, Technical Manager at Alarm Watch.

In alarm monitoring, we often talk about backup batteries and how long the system will remain in working order once the power is off. In fact, the times required for various systems to stay “alive” are in the NZ Standards. But the effects on the alarm monitoring from a power cut are often not discussed - especially if the alarm is only monitored over an IP connection.

If the alarm panel has backup power but the router doesn’t, and the connection is IP-only, then monitoring stops. It doesn’t matter how smart the panel is — if the data can’t get out, no one’s coming.

Here’s the issue: many clients reasonably assume that if their alarm system has a backup battery, the monitoring will keep working as long as the alarm is running. But unless the IP path is managed in a robust environment — with proper UPS, network supervision, and someone maintaining it — that assumption can be dangerously wrong.

Imagine:

• A fire that starts in the switchboard, knocks out power, and takes all monitored smoke detectors offline instantly.

• A burglar cuts the power and enters unnoticed because the monitoring path went silent.

• Your ‘IT’ person in the office tidies up the patch panel and didn’t know what the blue cable was.

• Or, more simply — someone accidentally unplugs the RJ45 cable at home so the kids can plug their Xbox in.

These aren’t rare cases. They’re real, preventable gaps.

So what’s the solution? Let’s look at the better options:

• 4G alone isn’t perfect (cell towers can drop), but will work in a power cut.

• 4G + IP is far more resilient.

• Many communicators already support dual-path — installers may just need to enable the IP side by plugging into the router. Permaconn PM45, Multipath T4000 Lite, and even the Arrowhead 4GT modules can all offer IP in addition to the 4G - at no additional monthly cost.

• Many alarms with built in IP communicators also have a 4G SIM option - you can supply a prepaid SIM, or manage your own through the likes of M2M One, or even take advantage of the SIMs that Permaconn is now offering for just such instances. It depends on how involved you want to be with managing the SIM. Again - no additional cost for dual path.

• Dual-SIM devices (using two separate mobile networks) are also an excellent option for high-risk or critical sites — not for everyone, but invaluable in the right context. And in many cases you can also offer Dual-SIM

Ultimately, it comes down to clear communication and client consent. “I told them at the time” isn’t enough. Let’s aim for: “We explained the risks, it’s in the contract, and the client acknowledged that 4G or dual-path is the safer option.”

We owe that clarity to our clients — and to the integrity of the systems we install.

Graeme McKenzie, Alarm Watch Technical Manager

FIRST Security creates historic milestone with appointment of new CEO

Sara Norrie joins FIRST Security as new CEO, becoming the first female to lead the company and the first to lead a physical security provider in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Norrie joins FIRST Security from Wilson Parking New Zealand, where she has spent the last 18 years, earning a reputation for people-focused leadership, customer-focused delivery, and innovation.

She brings experience from servicedriven organisations, with earlier roles in the Metropolitan Police in the UK and Qantas.

“Sara’s appointment as CEO is testament to her strong leadership, proven capability and consistent delivery across the business,” said Wilson Group CEO Jose Da Silva. “As our first female CEO, her progression is also indicative of our ongoing advancement in building greater diversity across our executive and our commitment to developing strong talent across our Group.”

“As a leader, Sara is deeply committed to building inclusive, highperforming cultures and is passionate about uniting people behind a common purpose as FIRST Security enters its next phase of growth. We are confident that under her leadership, we will continue to deliver exceptional service to our customers and communities across Aotearoa.”

Norrie commenced her Wilson Parking New Zealand career as Finance Manager, advancing through operational and executive positions, leading the company’s Auckland Parking business then serving as

Executive General Manager. She stepped into the role of New Zealand Chief Operating Officer in 2020.

During her time at Wilson Parking, Norrie played a pivotal role in transforming operations, lifting performance, and driving growth. She led the business through the Covid-19 pandemic, maintaining profitability while prioritising the safety and wellbeing of staff and customers. Under her leadership, the ParkMate app was successfully rolled out and now serves over 25% of eligible drivers across New Zealand.

“I am excited to take on this new challenge in an industry that aligns closely with my experience,” Norrie said on her appointment.

“FIRST Security is a strong business with great people and

innovating at pace,” she said.

“Their philosophy of protecting people first and fostering genuine client relationships and authentic partnerships is something that definitely connects with my principles as a leader. I am looking forward to working with the team to build on that foundation.”

Norrie replaces outgoing CEO Tim Covic who moves on after seven successful years with the business—during which he drove growth, innovation, and operational excellence.

“Tim leaves FIRST Security in a strong position, and we thank him for his outstanding leadership and dedication,” said Da Silva concluded.

“We now look forward to this next chapter under Sara’s leadership.”

New Zealand breaks into prestigious LSA security thought leader Top 40 list

Over half of this year’s Life Safety Alliance Top 40 Global Thought Leaders in Security and Life Safety listees hail from more than a dozen nations, with New Zealand making the cut for the first time.

The US-based Life Safety Alliance (LSA) announced the results of its second annual roll call of Top 40 Global Thought Leaders in Security and Life Safety in July, recognising thought leaders from across life safety, physical security, cybersecurity, risk management, loss prevention, and intelligence, and representing over a dozen countries.

The list represents an effort to bring enhanced objectivity, transparency, and rigour to the process of identifying influencers and thought leaders in the field. Candidate scores were determined using a proprietary algorithm that considered various factors, including conference presentations, webinar and podcast appearances, LinkedIn reach, academic courses taught, and volunteer leadership positions held, among others, from 01 May 2024 to 30 April 2025.

After reviewing the credentials of hundreds of professionals in the life safety and security fields, LSA contacted more than 200 candidates it identified as some of the most active and influential thought leaders in the industry. This list was ultimately shortened to those ranked among the top forty.

“After an inaugural year that exceeded our expectations for both interest in the recognition and quality of the Top 40 recipients, we are delighted to see both repeat honourees from 2024 as well as a large group of fresh faces,” said Becky Lane, acting CEO of LSA.

Among the first-time listees is New Zealand Security Magazine chief editor Nicholas Dynon, who becomes the first kiwi to break into the Top 40.

“It is an unexpected honour to be named alongside luminaries of the sector who I have long looked up to,” said Nicholas who is also Group Brand Strategy & Innovation Director at Optic Security Group. “It’s particularly exciting to be the first New Zealander to have made it to the list.”

“New Zealand is a long way from the metropolises of security industry debates in North America and Europe,

and many would assume we are far removed from the urgency of these debates due to our geographic isolation, our perceived place in the geopolitical food chain, and our ostensibly peaceful society. None of these assumptions are correct.”

“New Zealanders have a role to play in international commentary and debate on security industry and profession matters, and we possess many great security communicators,” he said. “I would hope and expect to see Aotearoa increasingly represented in the LSA Top 40 list going forward.”

It’s no coincidence that the 2025 Top 40 saw a more international field than 2024, including New Zealand’s first-ever showing, with this year’s program chaired by Auckland-based Andrew Thorburn, an internationally respected security professional and Enterprise Security & Risk Manager at Wesco Anixter.

“As awareness of and interest in this recognition has grown, 2025 was even more competitive than 2024,” Lane continued, “especially since Andrew Thorburn led an effort to draw in as many candidates as possible from

everywhere around the world,” said the LSA’s Becky Lane.

“I’m very proud to lead the LSA Top 40 recognition program because it uniquely reflects the direct and measurable impact of practitioners and academics on thought leadership in security risk management and life safety,” said Thorburn.

“We cast a wide net to identify individuals who have demonstrated impact, innovation, and ethics, while also considering factors such as geography, market size, and market maturity,” he said.

The LSA is a not-for-profit promoting best practices for the Security and Life Safety industry through collaboration with trade associations, academic institutions, and members in areas of standards, professional development, technology innovation, research, and certification.

The 2025 LSA Top 40 Global Thought Leaders in Security & Life Safety included many names well known to New Zealand security professionals, including Yolanda Hamblen (IFPO / The Security Circle Podcast, UK), Mike Hurst (IFPO

Global Advisory Board, UK), and Dr. Gav Schneider, (ISRM Australia & New Zealand Chapter, Australia).

“I’d like to thank my colleagues within the various organisations I am associated with for their support,” said Nicholas.

“In particular, I’d like to express my gratitude to Defsec’s publisher and my good friend and colleague Craig Flint. Craig founded New Zealand Security Magazine over three decades ago, and it’s a publication I am proud to have been editor of over the past decade under Craig’s guidance.

“Over that time, NZSM has not only survived the existential challenges faced by trade publications and media generally but it has evolved into a multi-platform online hub for security news and commentary read by security professionals the world over,” said Nicholas. “Craig is a true visionary.”

The LSA Top 40 Global Thought Leaders in Security & Life Safety is the premier listing of security thought leaders worldwide, having taken that role following the demise of the IFSEC Global Influencer in Security & Fire Awards, which ceased following its 2022 edition.

Australia is too often a leader in conspiracy thinking –from Port Arthur ‘trutherism’

to Christchurch

Australia’s media and politics have distanced the Christchurch shooter from his local origins and the domestic conditions that helped shape his worldview, writes the University of Sydney’s Dr Alexander Howard.

Dr Alexander Howard is a Senior Lecturer, Discipline of English and Writing, University of Sydney.

The Australian government officially categorised the white supremacist Terrorgram Collective as a terrorist organisation last month – after it was linked to an alleged plot to kill a New South Wales Labor MP. A decentralised network, Terrogram mostly operates on the messaging app Telegram.

Perpetrators of mass violence –including the Australian perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque shootings –are called “saints” by its users. They are treated as icons, martyrs and even role models.

Terrorgram promotes white supremacist and neo-Nazi beliefs, and encourages acts of violence. It also spreads propaganda and instructional guides for terrorism. Ariel Bogle, an investigations reporter at Guardian Australia, and Cam Wilson, associate editor of Crikey, argue artefacts circulated online (like footage of the Christchurch shootings, and the perpetrator’s 74-page manifesto) serve as blueprints for subsequent atrocities

Conspiracy Nation , their impressively researched new book of investigative journalism, explains how conspiratorial thinking, misinformation and radicalising narratives move through online

platforms and real-world communities in contemporary Australia. They find them in fringe forums, mainstream politics, encrypted group chats, rallies and physical attacks.

One of this riveting book’s most surprising takeaways is how often Australia has proved to be a forerunner rather than a follower when it comes to conspiratorial thinking. For example, the 1996 Port Arthur massacre , our deadliest mass shooting, has spawned a set of conspiracy theories to rival those around Lee Harvey Oswald.

The Christchurch massacre legacy

The appalling legacy of the Christchurch massacre, and the social media pulpits that allow it to be amplified, make for a sobering (and at times, difficult) read.

Bogle and Wilson pay close attention to the shooter’s manifesto, a document that “laid out his so-called vision of the world”. He uploaded it to the internet immediately before launching his rampage – and posted copies to various media outlets and the New Zealand parliament.

They start by reminding us: it’s not possible to completely understand the mind of someone like the Christchurch terrorist. His statements – better seen as propaganda – were calculated to gain notoriety, to muddy the waters.

While it may seem at first glance to be a straightforward expression of white supremacist ideology, argue the authors, the shooter’s manifesto is better understood as a text shaped by conspiracy theory.

The document echoes longstanding tropes from the transnational white power movement, references notorious slogans, and paints an idealised image of motherhood and pastoral life. Yet its rhetorical force derives from a deeper paranoia: a belief that Western civilisation is under coordinated attack.

The Great Replacement Theory

The Christchurch shooter’s manifesto was titled “Great Replacement”. In it, he accused liberal politicians of “deliberately engineering the extinction or replacement of White Westerners through mass immigration of non-Whites”.

The title clearly referenced a foundational myth for the international far-right: the Great Replacement Theory. It takes its name from a 2011 book by French activist and conspiracy theorist Renaud Camus , which claimed white populations in Europe were being

systematically replaced by Muslims, as part of a wider globalist plot.

“Combined with a fixation on a decline in white birth rates in Western countries,” Bogle and Wilson write, “it has mutated into an all-encompassing conspiracy theory, and at times, an incitement to violence.” The ideological origins of this inflammatory conspiracy, however, stretch even further back.

One of Camus’ main influences was Jean Raspail’s dystopian 1973 novel The Camp of the Saints: a cult text in far-right circles. In the book, a flotilla of migrants from India sails towards France, eventually overwhelming its institutions and destroying the nation. Raspail depicts non-white migrants as a barbaric, invidious force – an existential threat to the very fabric of Western civilisation.

The Camp of the Saints has long been championed by white nationalists, and was reportedly described by former Trump strategist Steve Bannon as essential reading. White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, the architect of the Trump administration’s hardline immigration policy, is also a fan.

The theory is framed as concern over birth rates or border control. But, like so many conspiratorial narratives, it frequently shades into antisemitism. Behind the scenes of demographic change, so the story almost always goes, lies a covert cabal – typically Jewish – manipulating migration flows to undermine and eventually erase white Christian populations.

As Conspiracy Nation emphasises, this fusion of racial panic, conspiracism and violence is not incidental. It is integral to how the far-right radicalises, mobilises and ultimately sows the seeds of discord and destruction.

Australia’s convenient ‘great forgetting’

“Australian politics, media and the culture more broadly have arguably engaged in a great forgetting” over the “local origins” of the Christchurch shooter, write Bogle and Wilson. On March 15 2024, the fifth anniversary of the attack, the event barely warranted a mention in the national press.

Port Arthur Bay, Port Arthur was the location of most of the shootings.

Al Noor mosque in Christchurch New Zealand

There has been a persistent tendency among Australian politicians and the media punditry to treat the Christchurch shooter as a lone wolf, radicalised elsewhere, who has absolutely nothing to do with us, they write.

This distancing, deliberate or not, has allowed Australia to sidestep a long-overdue reckoning with the domestic conditions that helped shape his worldview. A media environment saturated with race-baiting rhetoric, a political class willing to flirt with talking points from the culture wars – and a national climate in which Islamophobia has too often gone unchecked.

Bogle and Wilson, to their credit, insist Australian readers sit with this discomfort. Indeed, it is one of the most compelling – and quietly confronting – aspects of their excellent book.

Australia has, at various moments, helped incubate and export narratives that gain traction globally – often with disastrous consequences. The Christchurch shooter is just one example of this disturbing pattern.

Despite overwhelming evidence, for instance, elements of Australia’s conspiratorial fringe have long claimed the Port Arthur massacre was a false flag operation, designed to pave the way for the introduction of strict gun control laws.

Theories ranged from Martin Bryant as a government patsy in the mould of Lee Harvey Oswald , to the belief the entire massacre was staged.

Port Arthur: a common thread

Port Arthur has become “one of the foundational stories in the construction of Australian conspiracy lore”, note Bogle and Wilson. It is regularly cited as the original reason why the police, the government, mainstream media and, well, everyone, can’t be trusted. It is the common thread through a swathe of Australian conspiracy theory communities. If you believe you’ve been lied to about vaccines, elections, the law, immigration, et cetera – well, it wouldn’t be surprising if “they” had lied to you about Port Arthur, too.

Significantly, this was one of the first Australian conspiracy theories to take root and flourish online. We can thank Perth’s late conspiracy theorist Joe Vialls. A prolific and highprofile figure in conspiracy circles, he specialised in producing a “surprising number of alternative explanations for world events casting them as the handiwork of nefarious, hidden forces”.

His “magnum opus”, the book Deadly Deception at Port Arthur, was first published in 1999. A pseudoscientific screed, it cast aspersions on shadowy state actors and exonerated Bryant. It was widely distributed in both print and digital form.

This was the dawn of what we now call Web 1.0. For enterprising figures like Vialls – operating outside traditional media channels – the internet was transformational. It allowed conspiracy peddlers to bypass mainstream gatekeepers and reach global audiences of like-minded believers.

A digital copy of Vialls’ Port Arthur book became especially popular, gaining traction in the outer rims of the online world. Emboldened by the international response to his work, Vialls began soliciting donations to fund a new investigation into Bryant’s actions. He died before he got the chance to carry it out.

Canary in the conspiracy coalmine

In the three decades since the massacre, “Port Arthur trutherism” has grown from a marginal curiosity into a persistent current in Australian conspiracy culture. As Bogle and Wilson record, it even found a “foothold” in parliament.

In 2019, Pauline Hanson appeared to reference Vialls’ infamous “blue book” (referring to its distinctive cover) during an interview with Andrew Bolt on Sky News. She claimed she had “read a lot” on the subject, made some odd remarks about “precision shots” and seemed decidedly sceptical about the official account of the event.

One Nation has occasionally distanced itself from such claims, write Bogle and Wilson. But conspiracy theories about Port Arthur continue to circulate – and often do real harm to those who come into contact with them.

Knowing this, Bogle and Wilson are surely right to describe the Port Arthur massacre conspiracy theory as “the canary in the coal mine for modern conspiracy theories”. Sadly, its endurance demonstrates how fringe narratives can metastasise online. Whether they will prove fatal to public life – and our already fragile shared understanding of reality – remains to be seen.

This article was originally published in The Conversation on 30 July 2025.

Crowded House at Crowded Places Forum

Security industry, police, government, and venue managers participate in two-day forum to share knowledge and workshop how to mitigate terror risks to the public.

On July 22 and 23 the New Zealand Security Association (NZSA) together with the Crowded Places Security Advisory Group (CPSAG) hosted the first Security of Crowded Places in New Zealand Forum at Eden Park in Auckland.

Close to 100 attendees from large venues, security providers and consultants, and council entities were joined by the NZ Police, NZSIS, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) and other stakeholders, to discuss how Aotearoa can detect, prevent and respond to violent incidents in and around large events and busy commercial areas in the country.

NZ Police have been working closely with the NZSA and CPSAG along with the Crowded Places Business Advisory and Community Groups to develop advice to reduce the risk of attack in locations where large numbers of people gather.

At the heart of this effort is the Government’s Crowded Places Strategy, which has a focus on forging partnerships with business, community and public safety agencies.

The content over the two days included a briefing on our current threat environment from the NZSIS and an outline of how DPMC is working to counter terrorism and violent extremism. NZ Police, led by Senior Sergeant Richard Scott, discussed learnings on detecting hostile reconnaissance, recognising and responding to threats, and hostile vehicle mitigation.

Day 2 included a case study from Ken McKenzie on the ANZAC day services at Auckland Museum, which was followed by two hours of knowledge café sessions where the participants engaged on 10 key questions that require attention.

Matt Helyer, Chair of the Crowded Places Business Advisory Group (CPBAG) challenged the security industry to lift quality, quantity and capability.

Discussions were held around how the government’s pending Escape/ Hide/Tell campaign can be successfully rolled out through venues and more broadly to the public. Another key takeout was how integration with other agencies such as Te Whatu Ora and Department of Education would be critical for both education and identifying potential threat actors who reside in or are processed through such agencies.

A key part of the event was the sharing of local and global best practices and resources documents,

including those from the NZSIS, the Australia New Zealand Counter Terrorism Committee (ANZCTC) and from Australian and UK agencies.

A case study from the Manchester Bombing event drove home how gaps in communication and training led to a potential threat being left unaddressed, with tragic consequences.

Gary Morrison, NZSA CEO, was enthused by the turnout and the level of engagement from attendees. He said that the feedback had been exceptional and demonstrated the willingness and ability of the security sector to work with key agencies and stakeholders in ensuring a safer society.

There was broad agreement that the event become annual and potentially expanded. A focus on critical infrastructure was discussed as a theme for the next forum. The NZSA is producing a post-event report that will call out learnings for the security industry, and this is expected to be available within a month.

NZSA CEO’s July newsletter

In this monthly update, NZSA CEO Gary Morrison covers NZSA chairperson appointment, Ministerial Advisory Group Retail Crime, NZSA Board Cadet Appointment, launch of NZSA AI agent, PSPLA complaints, and more.

Gary Morrison is CEO of the New Zealand Security Association (NZSA). A qualified accountant, Gary was GM of Armourguard Security for New Zealand and Fiji prior to establishing Icon Security Group.

During June I had the pleasure of hosting the NZSA stand at the SecTech Roadshow as it visited Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.

Compliments need to go out to all exhibitors for the quality of their stands, and the turnout in each centre surpassed all expectations.

It was a great chance to talk to members, non-members and industry colleagues and the general consensus was that whilst the last year has been challenging, most are seeing a sizeable increase in business, and confidence levels are certainly positive.

On a separate note, we continue to receive a significant number of emails and calls from operational and frontline staff that indicate they are not reading this newsletter (and updates) and receiving information relevant to them. We strongly encourage our member organisations to have operational sign up for our communications or ensure that they

are made available for operational staff. The newsletter subscription can be found at the bottom of the homepage on the NZSA website.

NZSA Board Cadet appointment

In our last newsletter we advised that we were seeking applications from individuals keen to join the NZSA Board as a Cadet for a two-year term. The Cadet programme allows the candidate to gain knowledge and experience in the operation of boards and to upskill themselves for future board placements. Whilst the role is non-voting, the Cadets are fully immersed in board activity and also contribute through participation in one or more of the subcommittees.

We received six standout applications for the available position but after a rigorous interview process the Board Selection Committee was thrilled to announce the appointment of Ruth Tongotongo as our new Board Cadet.

Ruth is a security consultant with Beca’s Auckland office and brings a wealth of security experience to the position, including expertise in emergency management.

Recognising the high calibre of the applicants for the role, we are currently in discussion with those who missed out with regards to establishing an NZSA Future Leaders Programme and will hopefully be able to provide further information on this in future newsletters.

NZSA Board Chairperson retirement and appointment

After five years as the NZSA’s Independent Chairperson, Gray Paterson will be standing down from the position at our AGM in August.

Without any disrespect to our previous member-appointed volunteer Chairs, having a selected independent chairperson has bought significant gains to our organisation, and being able to tap into Gray’s expertise and governance knowledge has proven invaluable during his time in the role.

As advised in our last newsletter we received in excess of 30 applications for the role when advertised several months ago and the NZSA Board Selection Committee has conducted a very robust and rigorous selection process whereby four shortlisted candidates were interviewed.

We are thrilled to inform our members that Don MacKinnon has been appointed to the role effective from the AGM on 19 August.

Don is one of New Zealand’s leading employment lawyers and is a very experienced company director,

particularly in the sport and not-forprofit sectors. He is currently Chair of The Blues Super Rugby Club and also Chairs the Sport Integrity Commission (previously Drugs Free Sport NZ) and the Integrity Vetting Panel for World Athletics.

Don has previously served as a Director of NZ Cricket (and Chair of its High-Performance Committee), Sport NZ, High Performance Sport NZ, was Chair of Netball NZ, and chaired the Sport and Recreation Integrity Working Group. He has also held several commercial directorships.

In addition, Don has undertaken various assignments within the Security and Private Investigator sectors and has detailed experience working with Central and Local Government and was made a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit (CMNZ) for his services to sport governance in New Zealand.

Launch of NZSA AI Agent/Chatbot

Within the next week or so you will be able to visit the NZSA website and utilise our AI Agent/Chatbot to answer a wide range of security-related questions, be they concerning industry licensing, training or operational capability and compliance.

This is our first foray into the world of AI, and we look forward to receiving user feedback.

Launch

of new member benefit –AI coaching and webinar

Alongside the introduction of our web-based AI Agent/Chatbot we have launched a new Member Benefit programme with Bruce Ross of Ignite Business, who comes highly recommended by NZSAE (New Zealand Society of Association Executives).

Ministerial Advisory Group update

The NZSA continues to work closely with Sunny Kaushal and the Ministerial Advisory Group for Victims of Retail Crime, providing guidance and input into ongoing discussions on proposed legislative changes to citizens arrest and the use of FRT (Facial Recognition Technology).

We have also recently provided submissions to the Advisory Group on the personal safety and powers of security personnel and legislative options beyond trespass for dealing with anti-social behaviour.

Ruth Tongotongo is the new NZSA Board Cadet appointment

Don MacKinnon is the new NZSA Board Chairperson

Minister Goldsmith provided an update to invited security providers and stakeholders in early July, and we will ensure key outtakes from the presentation are made available to members.

Security of Crowded Places in NZ Forum

The NZSA is proud to be hosting the two-day Security of Crowded Places in New Zealand Forum on 22 and 23 July at Eden Park.

We are running the event in partnership with the NZ Police and CPSAG (Crowded Places Security Advisory Group) and it provides an opportunity to educate security providers, security consultants, owner/ operators of events and venues, and other stakeholders on the crowded places resources currently available, and the learnings from various case studies, including the Manchester bombing and Bondi Junction stabbing incidents. Due to budgetary constraints we have had to limit attendees to 100 and our apologies to the more than 30+ applicants that we have had to place on a waitlist should any cancellations come through.

Given the interest in this event, and the importance of the topic, we will look to host a further forum next year and potentially expand the scope to include security of critical infrastructure in addition to the security of crowded places.

OSPAs (Outstanding Security Performance Awards)

The winners of the OSPA’ were announced last week at the awards dinner at the Ellerslie Events Centre in Auckland, and we extend our congratulations to all finalists and the winners.

The OSPAs are an international awards programme operating from the UK with representation across some 48 countries.

Whilst the NZSA’s focus remains firmly focused on the New Zealand Security Awards, which he have hosted for in excess of 30 years, we are happy to support and promote events that recognise excellence within the security industry and particularly those who operate at the front line.

Complaint updates

One of the largely unseen functions of the NZSA is receiving, investigating and responding to complaints.

Whilst we do receive occasional complaints concerning allegations of poor service by our members, most seem to involve poor communication between the respective parties and can generally be resolved without any difficulty.

More common are complaints concerning non-members operating without the necessary licences. Depending on the situation we generally take a proactive approach by contacting the provider first and ensuring they are aware of the licensing requirements, but where appropriate I submit a formal complaint with the PSPLA under my name as that keeps the original complainant’s details confidential.

Those complaints are investigated by the DIA CIPU (Criminal Investigation and Prosecutions Unit) and where upheld, the Registrar for the PSPLA has the authority to impose fines or even to order the entity to cease providing security services. The investigation outcomes are published on the PSPLA website under the Complaints tab and provide interesting insight into the work done by the Authority.

Over recent months members may have seen articles in the media relating to two complaints that we have been involved in.

The first concerns Mr Craig Shephard, the owner of Harbour City Security, who in 2023 was convicted of four historical offences of male assaults female, and lost his claim for continued name suppression late 2024. The NZSA, along with the NZ Police, filed complaints with the PSPLA with regards to the suitability of Mr Shephard, and therefore Harbour City Security, to hold a COA and Security Licence respectively.

Following a full day hearing involving the defendant, his legal representative, witnesses and the complainants, the Authority determined that Mr Shephard may retain his licence, but under strict conditions including immediate cancellation should any further allegations of offending (current or historic) come to light.

Whilst we continue to be supportive of the PSPLA and their efforts to improve licensing compliance, the NZSA is very disappointed with this decision. In our opinion it severely compromises the expected standards for obtaining and holding a security licence, and reflects poorly on our industry and the licensing body when convicted offenders are granted leave to hold a licence.

We have our regular meeting with the Registrar, Trish McConnell, coming up shortly and will be registering our concerns with this decision and seeking clarity on where the bar is set given this case will be viewed as setting a precedent.

The second complaint relates to a recent RFP conducted by Oranga Tamariki (OT) and what we, and a number of our members and other industry providers, consider to be a flawed process. Our complaint focused largely on two areas, being OT’s engagement with an offshorebased organisation that at that time did not hold the necessary security licenses, and OT’s decision to accept submissions for what we consider to be non-compliant solutions.

We have received several responses from OT (including a response to follow up questions) justifying their approach, however we still have significant concerns with regards to the integrity of their process and the effectiveness of their preferred solution. Whilst not the outcome we hoped for, we understand that OT is conducting due diligence on the selected provider and the proposed solution and that there is still the potential for a review of the decision.

NZSA AGM

The NZSA 2025 AGM will be held on Tuesday 19 August at the Rose Gardens Convention Centre in Parnell, Auckland.

We will provide formal notification and RSVP closer to the date. The AGM is preceded by a complimentary light breakfast from 7.30am and the AGM will commence at 8.30am.

Please note that we have had three board members retire this year and we will be seeking to replace all three of them with a member vote.

For those with an interest in standing for the board, we will provide information about the nomination process within the next few weeks, and I would welcome a call or contact from anyone seeking background information about the process and the responsibilities and obligations of board members.

New Zealand Security Awards

We will be launching nominations for the New Zealand Security Awards in early July, and I encourage business owners and managers, customers and industry stakeholders to take the time to nominate those who have excelled in their roles and are the face of our industry.

We have 19 award categories covering a wide variety of security roles with the vast majority of the categories targeted at those in operational and frontline positions.

You will find more information on the awards event later in this newsletter and for those who are putting in nominations, I would encourage you to refer to the guidance document “Submitting a Winning Nomination” on the website.

As always, we welcome all comments and feedback on NZSA or industry issues and activity.

Keep safe and well.

Harsher penalties for shoplifters likely to backfire

Stronger penalties for low-level retail theft are being lauded by Retail NZ as a positive step in the fight against crime, but this contradicts established evidence that harsher sentencing increases repeat offending, writes Nicholas Dynon.

Nicholas Dynon is chief editor of NZSM, and a widely published commentator on New Zealand’s defence, national security and private security sectors.

“Public confidence in our justice system is undermined if people can steal with apparent impunity. It’s disheartening, and our government will not sit by while shoplifters rob businesses of their livelihoods,” said Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith in a 01 July announcement.

“Currently, the administrative burden can deter retailers from making official complaints, and lower-level offending often goes unreported or unpunished,” he said. “Our government is restoring real consequences for crime, and shoplifting is no exception.”

The ‘real consequences’ have been wrapped up in a bundle of proposed changes that include:

• Introducing an infringement regime for shoplifting in retail premises.

For stolen goods valued up to $500, infringement fees will be up to $500. For goods valued over $500, fees will be up to $1,000.

• Strengthening the penalties for theft. The maximum penalties will be one year imprisonment (if the value is approximately $2,000 or less), or seven years imprisonment (if value is approximately more than $2,000).

• Creating a new aggravated theft offence for when the value of the goods is under $2,000 and the theft is carried out in a manner that is offensive, threatening, insulting, or disorderly.

“Harsher penalties could mean up to twice as long behind bars for aggravated theft, and criminals will be forced to think twice before destroying more lives,” said Courts Minister Nicole McKee.

“Our government is focused on restoring law and order, reducing violent crime, and putting victims first in our justice system,” she said, thanking the Ministerial Advisory Group for Victims of Retail Crime and its Chair Sunny Kaushal for their shaping of the proposed changes.

Paul Goldsmith Justice Minister

Retail NZ backs the change

According to peak retailer body Retail NZ , the new penalties are a positive step in the fight against retail crime.

“It’s great to see new measures being introduced that will broaden opportunities for shoplifting to have significant repercussions,” said Retail NZ Chief Executive Carolyn Young, who is also a member of the Ministerial Advisory Group on retail crime.

“Retailers are crying out for proactive solutions that prevent crime and enhance the safety of their staff and customers,” she said. “Our members continue to face high rates of violence and crime, putting both their employees and the public at risk, as well as threatening the financial sustainability of retail businesses.”

According to the retailers’ group, retail crime is a significant issue, impacting more than 99% of New Zealand retailers and costing well over $2.6 billion a year.

Retail NZ’s COMS Retail Crime Report 2024 found that 73% of retailers experienced shoplifting during the year and 58% experienced threatening behaviour.

“Shoplifting is at epidemic levels and recidivist offenders are a big issue,” Ms Young said.

Experts rubbish punitive approach

As admirable as the governments’ and Retail NZ’s sentiments are, established academic research suggests that they provide a dangerous basis for the formulation of policy.

Academic studies have roundly debunked the fallacy that harsher penalties dissuade people from committing crimes. In fact, research confirms that while punitive approaches may address electoral pressures on governments to be seen to be tough on crime, they tend ironically to fuel recidivism.

Being ‘tough on crime’ contradicts evidence that prisons are a training ground for harder criminals, wrote University of Auckland masters graduate Bex Silver in an article in the lead-up to the 2023 national election.

“This long-standing punitive approach to crime withstands the plethora of evidence and research that disproves its effectiveness for reducing reoffending,” she wrote. “On the contrary, criminal justice experts and statisticians have consistently said harsher sentencing increases recidivism.”

“Why do we continue to entertain the ‘tough on crime’ narrative? My guess is that politicians are subject to the approval of the public who are getting swept up in common myths about crime and public safety. The public deserves better, to have accurate information to inform their vote in this election.”

The ‘we need to get tough on crime’ narrative that dominated the agendas of political parties ahead of the 2023 election promised “victims a false sense of safety which contradicts the comprehensive and compelling evidence that prisons are a training ground for harder criminals.”

It’s a narrative, she wrote, that’s “driven by opportunistic politicians

wanting an easy vote; politicians who claim to know better than the experts in this field.”

It’s a point with which University of New South Wales Emeritus Professor of Law David Brown concurs.

“Deterrence is very largely an article of faith,” he wrote in a 2020 article . “I call it sentencing’s dirty secret because it’s just assumed that there is deterrence … but what the research shows is that the system has little to no deterrent effect.”

According to Professor Brown, harsher punishments, such as longer prison sentences, not only do not prevent crime but may actually have the opposite effect.

“What research is increasingly showing is that imprisonment itself and punishment more generally is actually criminogenic – it makes it more likely that people are going to reoffend,” he said.

“The severity of punishment, known as marginal deterrence, has no real deterrent effect, or the effect of reducing recidivism,” he said. “The only minor deterrent effect is the likelihood of apprehension. So if people think they’re more likely to be caught, that will certainly operate to some extent as a deterrent”.

Even the US Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice has published public guidance explaining that increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime

“Some policymakers and practitioners believe that increasing the severity of the prison experience enhances the “chastening” effect, thereby making individuals convicted of an offense less likely to commit crimes in the future,” states the National Institute of Justice. “In fact, scientists have found no evidence for the chastening effect.”

“Research has found evidence that prison can exacerbate, not reduce, recidivism.”

In conclusion – and unless I’m missing something here – the research brings us to the bleedingly obvious conclusion that government would do well to be listening to expert perspectives in security and criminal justice rather than to lobby groups and vested interests that believe they know better.

James Bond: The Man with the Golden Gun – A Masterclass in Physical Security Risk Management

According to ICARAS Security Consultants, the ninth Bond film – and Roger Moore’s second – can be viewed as a cinematic study in deterrence, detection, delay and response.

In the 1974 cinematic classic The Man with the Golden Gun, Francisco Scaramanga, the suave assassin with a penchant for opulence, retreats to a secluded island fortress in the Pacific Ocean. This sun-drenched lair, shrouded in secrecy and menace, is more than a mere backdrop to James Bond’s escapades—it’s a veritable case study in physical security risk management.

While the film’s narrative pits the unstoppable 007 against Scaramanga’s defences, it’s worth noting a delightful irony: Bond doesn’t so much breach the island’s security as he is courteously ushered in, intercepted by the villain’s own henchmen. For mere mortals, however, the island’s protective measures present a daunting challenge.

In this exploration, we’ll dissect the strategies of deterrence, detection, delay, and response that safeguard Scaramanga’s domain, assess their timeless efficacy, and consider how modern advancements might elevate them further—all while reflecting on the indispensable role of strategic planning in fortifying such a stronghold.

The Fortress Unveiled: A Layered Defence

Scaramanga’s island is no haphazard retreat; it’s a meticulously engineered bastion where every element serves a purpose. The security framework operates on a quartet of principles— deterrence, detection, delay, and response—each interlocking like the mechanisms of a Swiss watch, designed to thwart intrusion with precision and flair.

Deterrence: The Moat of Modernity

Picture the island as a modern-day Camelot, its isolation a moat far wider and more treacherous than any medieval drawbridge could boast. Nestled in a remote corner of the Pacific, accessible only by boat or helicopter, the island’s very geography repels the casual interloper.

This natural barrier is augmented by a perimeter that bristles with intent: a towering fence crowned with razor wire, ominous warning signs, and a vigilant array of surveillance cameras. These are not mere decorations but a clarion call to would-be trespassers— entry comes at a price few are willing to pay.

The psychological weight of such visible fortifications mirrors the battlements of ancient citadels,

discouraging all but the most determined foes before they even set foot on the shore.

Detection: The Eyes That Never Sleep

Yet isolation alone cannot suffice.

Scaramanga, ever the pragmatist, equips his island with an intricate web of detection systems, ensuring no shadow moves unnoticed.

Motion sensors hum quietly along the perimeter, infrared cameras pierce the darkness, and tripwires lie in wait like silent sentinels. When triggered, these devices sound an alarm that reverberates through the island’s

command centre, alerting its guardians to potential threats.

This early warning system is the linchpin of the defence, granting precious time to orchestrate a counterstroke—a principle as vital in 1974 as it is today, where the stakes of undetected intrusion can be catastrophic.

Delay: Time as an Ally

Should an intruder breach the outer defences, the island’s delay tactics come into play, transforming haste into hindrance. Reinforced doors and locked gates stand as immovable sentries, while the rugged natural terrain—cliffs, dense foliage, and hidden paths—confounds the uninitiated.

These physical obstacles are complemented by a cadre of security personnel, trained not just to confront but to impede, their hand-to-hand prowess buying critical moments for reinforcements to rally.

It’s a strategy reminiscent of a chess grandmaster sacrificing a pawn to protect the king, each delay a calculated move to preserve the island’s sanctity.

Response: Swift and Decisive Action

The crescendo of this defensive symphony is the response. Once a threat is detected, a team of highly trained operatives springs into action,

armed with an arsenal befitting a Bond villain—pistols, rifles, and perhaps a golden gun or two. Supported by a fleet of boats and helicopters poised for rapid deployment, this force ensures that any incursion is met with overwhelming resolve.

Whether neutralising the threat or securing an evacuation, the response is as swift as it is relentless, a testament to the preparedness that underpins the island’s security ethos.

Modern Enhancements: Fortifying the Future

While Scaramanga’s defences were formidable in their era, the passage of five decades has ushered in technological marvels that could elevate this island fortress to new heights.

Consider deterrence: the addition of drones, armed with high-resolution cameras and thermal imaging, could patrol the surrounding waters ceaselessly, their unblinking gaze a deterrent no patrol boat could match. Detection, too, could evolve—AIdriven analytics integrated into the camera network might sift through data with surgical precision, distinguishing a seabird from a saboteur and sparing the security team from false alarms.

For delay, modern engineering offers smart locks and biometric access controls, turning entry points into impregnable vaults that defy even the

cleverest lockpick. And in response, imagine automated systems—security drones or robotic sentinels—deployed at a moment’s notice, feeding real-time intelligence to human operatives for a coordinated strike.

These innovations don’t supplant the original framework but enhance it, marrying the elegance of 1970s design with the sophistication of the 21st century.

The Art of Strategy: Beyond the Gadgets

Yet, for all the allure of cuttingedge technology, the true genius of Scaramanga’s island lies not in its tools but in its strategy. Security is not a mere assemblage of hardware; it’s a tapestry woven from careful planning, where each thread—be it a fence, a sensor, or a guard—is tailored to address a specific vulnerability.

This bespoke approach is the hallmark of true protection, a lesson that resonates beyond the silver screen.

Conclusion: A Legacy of Resilience

Scaramanga’s island stands as a cinematic monument to the principles of physical security risk management. Its layered defences—deterrence to ward off the curious, detection to spot the cunning, delay to frustrate the bold, and response to repel the brazen—form a blueprint that endures. Modern technology can polish this gem, but the core lesson remains: security is an art of adaptation, sculpted to fit the contours of its environment.

For those safeguarding their own domains—whether corporate estates, critical infrastructure, or cherished assets—the imperative is clear. A strategic, risk-based approach transforms vulnerabilities into strengths. It’s not merely about amassing the tools of defence; it’s about wielding them with precision, ensuring that every mitigation aligns with a specific threat.

In the end, perhaps even Scaramanga might have tipped his hat to such expertise. After all, in a world where threats evolve as swiftly as Bond’s gadgets, the golden gun is only as effective as the mind that aims it.

Tougher laws to target boy racers

Boy racers to face bigger consequences for anti-social and intimidating driving under tough new laws recently introduced to parliament.

“New Zealanders are sick of seeing boy racers and dirt bike riders putting everyone around them at risk,” said transport minister Chris Bishop in a 30 July statement.

“We’re taking action by bringing in much tougher penalties for idiots who use our streets as racetracks, putting others at risk. If they want to drive dangerously, they will face serious consequences – and they won’t like them,” he said.

The Anti-Social Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill has been introduced to Parliament and it is expected to receive its first reading in August.

The new offences and penalties will include:

• establishing a presumptive sentence of vehicle destruction or forfeiture for those that flee Police, participate in street racing, burnouts, intimidating convoys and vehicle owners who fail to identify offending drivers – this means in most cases judges will be required to seize and either sell or destroy the vehicle.

• giving Police more powers to manage illegal vehicle gatherings by closing roads or public areas, including issuing infringements of $1000 for those who fail to leave areas when directed to by Police.

• increasing the infringement fee for making excessive noise from or within a vehicle from $50 to $300.

The proposed legislation targets “anti-social road users”, which includes those who flee police, or participate in unauthorised street racing, burnouts, intimidating convoys, disorderly dirt bike gatherings, or siren battles.

“These gatherings are dangerous to the participants, to bystanders, and to the public,” said police minister Mark Mitchell. “This bill will support Police to continue cracking down with a raft of additional powers.”

“Boy racers only care about one thing – their car. Once they realise they’re not getting it back, they’ll think twice about fleeing Police or driving dangerously.”

Additional powers for Police to manage illegal vehicle gatherings include:

• Expansion of the existing road closure power to include all public and private areas accessible to the public by vehicle (e.g. parks and car parks), and

• Establishment of an offence for a person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a direction to leave or not enter a closed area, and establish an associated penalty of a $1,000 infringement fee and a maximum $3,000 court fine. This includes bystanders.

The Bill establishes the following exceptions for vehicle forfeiture or destruction if:

• The offender is not the owner (this exception does not apply to the offence for owners who fail to provide information about a driver to Police).

• It would be manifestly unjust.

• It would cause extreme hardship to the offender, or undue hardship to any other person.

After its first reading, the Bill will go through a four month Select Committee process including public consultation.

New Auckland Central Police Base welcomed

The opening of the new Auckland central police station will mean higher police visibility and accessibility, but social issues in the CBD still need addressing.

The new CBD police base will be home to Auckland’s 51 inner city beat officers who will provide 24/7 policing coverage in the inner city.

“The community have been asking for a central police station for some time, and I am very pleased that Police have been able to deliver on this,” said police minister Mark Mitchell.

“In the last year, victimisations are down 17 percent, robbery has dropped 25 percent, and theft is down by 21 percent,” said Minister Mitchell.

“These results are encouraging, and reflect the hard work of our police officers, alongside stakeholders including Auckland Council, the retail community including Heart of the City, business associations, and community volunteers”.

CBD business association Heart of the City commended the opening of a permanent police station in the city centre, but warned that the social issues fuelling crime and antisocial behaviours remain.

In an 18 July press release, the organisation described the opening of the new police station as “a key milestone in the strong effort to boost safety in the city centre”.

“After years of local advocacy, we are delighted the call has been heard and we acknowledge the purpose and passion on display at the opening today from all levels of police,” said Chief Executive Viv Beck.

“A permanent police station will help to further increase the visibility of police here, keep up the momentum on reducing crime and complement the raft of local safety initiatives already in place. It’s a very welcome addition to support people to feel safe in the city centre.”

Heart of the City indicated that it will continue to advocate for more front-line resources to support the local police team, which, it stressed, must reflect the number of residents, workers, students and visitors that come into the city each day.

According to the business association, more work is needed to be done in advance of the International Convention Centre and City Rail Link both opening in 2026.

“You can’t put a price on our reputation as a safe country and city, and we must ensure our subterranean presence starts off on the right foot –not just for the city centre but also for the city fringe areas close to the new stations,” said Ms Beck.

Heart of the City – with city fringe business associations – is lobbying central government for a coordinated response on emergency housing and specialist services for people who need help with mental health and addiction.

“It’s vital that police can get on with their job to address crime and we need the same level of attention going into addressing social issues, which need different services,” said Ms Beck. “This is what is required for a vibrant, aspirational and safe 24/7 international city.”

Mark Mitchell Minister of Police

New report finds organisations’ cybersecurity not aligned with business risk priorities

Qualys 2025 State of Cyber Risk Assessment Report reveals many organisations are still approaching cyber risk as a technical rather than a business problem.

According to the research, nearly half (49%) of organisations have a formal cyber risk program in place, with the majority still relying heavily on manual processes, siloed security metrics and vulnerability severity alone to prioritise risks – often without factoring in asset value or business context.

“The research shows that the technical foundation for cyber-risk management exists – but what’s missing is strategic alignment between security operations and business priorities,” said Mayuresh Ektare, VP Product Management, Enterprise TruRisk Management at Qualys.

“To close this gap, cybersecurity must evolve from an IT function to a business function - one that can quantify loss, model risk scenarios, prioritise decisions, and demonstrate a measurable return on risk reduction. That evolution starts with business context, not just more data.” She said.

State of Cyber Risk Report Highlights

Insight 1: Formal Risk Programs are Expanding, But Business Context is Still Missing

While 49% of organisations have a formal cyber-risk management program, only 30% report that their risk management programs are prioritised based on business objectives. Moreover, 43% of those have been running for less than two years and 19% are still in the planning phase. The findings highlight a lack of sustained commitment to embedding business context into how these programs identity and prioritise risks.

Insight 2: More Investment Doesn’t Equal Less Risk

While cybersecurity spending has continued to grow, the vast majority (71%) of organisations believe that their cyber risk levels are rising or holding steady, with only 6% seeing risk levels decrease.

Insight 3: The Missing Metric: Business Relevance in Asset Intelligence

Asset visibility remains one of the biggest blind spots. Despite 83% of respondents reporting regular IT asset inventories, only 13% can do this continuously and nearly half still rely on manual processes.

Insight 4: Business Context Lacking in Risk Prioritisation

While 68% of respondents are using integrated risk scoring combining threat intelligence or using cyber risk quantification with forecasted loss

estimates to prioritise risk mitigation actions, nearly one in five (19%) of organisations continue to rank vulnerabilities using single scoring methods like CVSS alone, and just 18% update asset risk profiles monthly.

Insight 5: Boards Are Engaged, But Reporting Lacks Depth

While 90% of organisations report cyber-risk findings to the board, only 18% use integrated risk scenarios and just 14% tie risk reports to financial quantification. Business stakeholders are also only involved less than half the time (43%) and only 22% include finance teams in cyber risk discussions.

Insight 6: Top Risks Reflect the Human Factor

Phishing, ransomware, and insider threats were named as the top three risks to digital assets - underscoring the need for user education and identityaware risk management strategies.

NZTA secret billboard cameras drive controversy

Media controversy erupted when it was revealed recently that NZTA Waka Kotahi had been secretly using footage from privately-owned ANPR cameras in billboards at intersections in a trial to combat WOF fraud.

In a trial that commenced late February, NZTA has been collecting footage from ‘donor’ cameras in billboards to determine if the footage could be of benefit in investigations into cases where fraudulent activity by inspecting organisations is suspected.

“Safer Cities do not own or operate any cameras, but instead rely on providers loading their footage into the [Safer Cities] vGrid platform as ‘donors’,” stated NZTA Senior Manager Nicole Botherway in a 01 July response to an official information request.

“These providers include electronic billboard operators such as LUMO, which have built-in cameras which include Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) software, and CCTV operators including councils, individual businesses and car park operators,” wrote Ms Botherway.

“NZTA only has access to still images from ANPR donor cameras whose owners have specifically agreed to our usage.”

According to NZTA, the images are not being as part of agency’s current vehicle inspection compliance activity, but rather for the purpose of testing the potential for the future use of the technology in investigating fraud.

A 10 March response to an earlier OIA request indicated that NZTA uses ANPR camera for average speed/point-to-point (P2P) cameras, for tolling purposes, and for identifying heavy vehicle compliance with weight regulations. Missing from that list was the billboard ANPR trial that had begun just days earlier.

Police hands safety cameras to NZTA

Also on 01 July, NZTA has become solely responsible for the operation of the safety (speed and red light) camera network of around 150 cameras formerly operated by the Police. This number is planned to expand to around 200 cameras by 2027.

As part of the transfer of cameras from Police, which took place over a twelve month period, NZTA is also now operating mobile speed cameras in SUVs. The cameraequipped SUVs were rolled out in early May, with 44 planned nationwide.

The agency is also planning the rollout of new average speed safety cameras along high-risk corridors and roads.

These cameras work by calculating a vehicle’s average speed over a length of road between two cameras.

With NZTA in the news recently over its new responsibility for safety cameras – as well as the billboard ANPR controversy – it’s perhaps timely to lay out exactly what types of cameras the agency operates.

Safety cameras

According to NZTA, the operation of fixed safety cameras is outsourced to Redflex (trading as Verra Mobility), and the operation of mobile safety cameras is being outsourced to Acusensus NZ.

Spot/fixed spot speed safety cameras

These measure a vehicle’s speed moving towards or away from a camera. They also identify which lane a vehicle is travelling in, vehicle type, and the speed limits for different vehicle types.

Average speed or point-to-point (P2P) safety cameras

Average speed cameras work by calculating a vehicle’s average speed along the length of road between two cameras. Drivers are only ticketed if their average speed over the distance between the two cameras is over the limit.

Average speed safety cameras use ANPR to match a car’s number plate as it enters and exits the average speed measurement zone.

Red light safety cameras

These cameras detect vehicles that don’t stop at a red light. They track a vehicle approaching an intersection, and if the vehicle crosses the stop line when the light is red, they take a photo of the back of the vehicle.

Dual red light / speed safety cameras

As well as detecting red light offences, these cameras detect a vehicle’s speed when travelling through an intersection, to capture speeding vehicles at any phase of the light. The NZTA does not currently operate any dual red light / speed cameras.

Mobile safety cameras

Mobile safety cameras are spot speed safety cameras that are mounted in cars and trailers so they can be moved around. They track speeds of all vehicles traveling towards and away from the car or trailer. Mobile safety cameras are not signposted, and the vehicles or trailers that house them do not have any branding.

Mobile phone and seatbelt detection technology

These cameras detect people using their phone or not wearing their seatbelt while driving. They were trialled in Auckland in 2022 but further trials and a law change are required before these cameras can be used to detect offences.

Traffic management cameras

These cameras are operated for the purposes of managing operational land transport services, and delivering

operational and safety improvements. According to NZTA, examples may include identifying and managing events related to:

• road emergencies and motor vehicle crashes

• dangerous behaviour

• destructive behaviour such as vandalism

• the functionality of NZTA assets

• the correct use of transit lanes.

The agency also uses the footage to provide road users with updates on travel times and traffic flow and to provide data to assist in the improvement of the transport network.

NZTA CCTV cameras are operated by transport operation centres (TOC) in Auckland (ATOC) and Wellington (WTOC) and are managed by its Maintenance and Operations branch Transport Operations area.

Security cameras

NZTA also maintains a CCTV network within its premises, such as at its corporate offices, to provide security to staff and to protect its assets.

Motion-detected CCTV technology to protect other types of assets like tolling cameras. If motion is detected near the camera the CCTV will be switched on and monitored. If needed, Police will be called and a speaker will let anyone loitering near the camera know we’ve made that call.

At one of its safety camera sites in Glenbrook, Auckland, NZTA has installed motion-detected CCTV cameras to test whether it will deter vandalism.

To ensure the safety of operators and deter theft and vandalism, CCTV cameras and alarm systems are installed on all mobile safety camera cars and trailers. They are monitored 24/7.

News snippets from around Aotearoa

George Koria starts at NZICC

The New Zealand International Convention Centre (NZICC) has announced the appointment of George Koria as its new Security Manager. George was previously a security manager at Air New Zealand.

“Born and bred in Tāmaki Makaurau, George brings extensive security expertise from roles at Securitek and Air New Zealand, alongside an exceptional 23 years of experience with the New Zealand Police. With George on board, we know we’re in safe hands,” said the ICC announcement.

“We’re thrilled to welcome George to our team. His deep experience in security and risk management will be invaluable in strengthening our safety protocols and ensuring peace of mind,” said Prue Daly, General Manager.

“What truly sets George apart is his calm, approachable demeanour and commitment to client service. His thoughtful and solutions-focused approach perfectly aligns with our values.”

Lee Odess drops by from the US Security technology thought leader and access control luminary Lee Odess spent a few days in Aotearoa in July, capping off his visit with a dinner among new friends at Sky

Tower’s spectacular Orbit 360 Dining restaurant.

“I can’t think of a market more primed for SaaS-based access control than New Zealand. That was my biggest takeaway from last night’s incredible dinner with this group,” Lee commented on LinkedIn.

“Great conversations, stunning views, and a strong sense of momentum in the room. I like what the future holds here.”

“Huge thanks to Andrew D. Thorburn for organizing such a memorable evening and bringing us together… [and] thank you Nicholas Dynon, Martyn Levy, Reck Diogo, and Ray Millar for taking the time and spend the evening with me.”

Established Waikato security business for sale

A long-established, profitable Waikatobased security installation business is up for sale. Having successfully provided a range of security services

for over 25 years across the Auckland, Waikato and Bay of Plenty, with some work nationwide, the vendor is now looking to retire and pass it on to a new owner.

The business has a skilled and experienced team in place and requires minimal owner involvement, offering potential for a hands-on owneroperator or as a strategic addition to an existing business. Average owners’ earnings are circa $200,000.

The business will need to be relocated shortly after settlement, but no lease commitments means a new owner will have flexibility about location. Asking price is $575,000

If you are interested and would like more information about this business, please visit the Barker Business Brokerage website , search reference number 3855 and submit the online Confidentiality Agreement. Once an expression of interest is received, further information will be provided about this opportunity.

Lee Odess, Security technology thought leader and access control luminary spent a few days in Aotearoa

George Koria, NZICC Security Manager

fire

unbreakable universal mounting

•Low power consumption - low operating temperature

•One product suits floor and wall mounting

•Universal armature - offsets to 55º to suit doors opening past 90º • Wall mount extensions available •12 & 24 VDC selectable • Push off button with no residual magnetism • Oversize armature for easy alignment • Emergency release button

•Electroless nickel plated armature and electromagnet

•Stainless fastenings • Full local support and back up

10 YEAR GUARANTEE*

Designed, tested and produced in New Zealand to AS4178

A)Wall mounted,126mm extn. tube (overall 202mm)

Surface and Recess mounting

This device enhances an outstanding range of unbreakable products which conveniently hold open fire doors. When a smoke/fire alarm is activated the magnet instantly releases the door to the closed position to prevent the spread of smoke and fire. These units feature a choice of 3 covers for optimum aesthetic appeal and durability. The installer can utilise one device for surface mounting or for recess mounting.

Privacy Commissioner launches Biometric Processing Privacy Code

Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster has issued a Biometric Processing Privacy Code that will create privacy rules for businesses and organisations using biometric processing technologies, such as facial recognition.

The Biometric Processing Privacy Code, which has now been law made under the Privacy Act, aims to ensure that organisations implementing biometric technologies are doing it safely and in a way that is proportionate.

The Code will regulate how organisations collect, hold, and use biometric information for the purposes of biometric processing. It applies to organisations who collect people’s biometric information in an automated process to verify, identify or categorise them.

Biometric information is information about how someone looks, moves or behaves, such as a person’s face, fingerprints, or iris, or how a person walks or sounds when they speak.

“Biometrics are some of our most sensitive information,” said Mr Webster. “It is not just information about us, it is us.”

“The very thing that makes biometrics risky, their uniqueness, also makes them useful. The aim of the new rules is to allow for beneficial uses of biometrics while minimising the risks for people’s privacy and society as a whole.”

The Code comes into force on 03 November 2025, but agencies already using biometrics have until 03 August 2026, to align themselves with the new rules.

“We understand the Code may require some changes to agencies’ processes and policies for them to be compliant, like creating new notifications, training staff, or changing their technical systems, and we wanted to give them enough time to make these happen,” said Mr Webster.

In addition to the usual requirements from the Privacy Act, the Code strengthens and clarifies the requirements on organisations to:

• assess the effectiveness and proportionality of using biometrics – is it fit for the circumstances

• adopt safeguards to reduce privacy risk

• tell people a biometric system is in use, before or when their biometric information is collected.

The Code also limits some particularly intrusive uses of biometric technologies like using them to predict people’s emotions or infer

information like ethnicity or sex, or other information protected under the Human Rights Act.

“Biometrics can have major benefits, including convenience, efficiency, and security,” said Mr Webster. “However, it can also create significant privacy risks, including surveillance and profiling, lack of transparency and control, and accuracy, bias, and discrimination.”

“Having biometric-specific guardrails will help agencies deploy these tools safely, using the right tool for the job and protecting people’s privacy rights as they do it,” he said.

Guidance is also being issued to support the Code. The guidance is very detailed and explains how we see the Code working in practice. It also sets out examples so agencies planning to use biometrics can better understand their obligations.

“Biometrics should only be used if they are necessary, effective and

proportionate; the key thing to make sure of is that the benefits outweigh the privacy risks,” said Mr Webster.

The Code’s 13 rules

The 13 privacy rules of the Code substitute for the 13 privacy principles of the Privacy Act. According to the OPC, from the point of view of an organisation, rules in the Code can be summarised:

1. Only collect biometric information if it’s necessary, effective and proportionate and with the right safeguards in place.

2. Get it straight from the people concerned where possible.

3. Tell them why you’re collecting biometric information, and if there’s an alternative option.

4. Be fair when you’re getting it.

5. Take care of it once you’ve got it.

6. People can ask if you have their biometric information and see their biometric information if they want to.

7. They can correct it if it’s wrong.

8. Make sure biometric information is correct before you use it.

9. Get rid of it once you’re done with it.

10. Use it for the purpose you got it and don’t categorise people unless there is a good reason.

11. Only disclose it if you have a good reason.

12. Make sure that biometric

information sent overseas is adequately protected.

13. Only assign unique identifiers if permitted.

The rules will be enforced by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC), which will take compliance action in relation to the Code in line with its Compliance and Regulatory Action Framework.

The Code’s key concepts

Key concepts in the Code include:

• Purpose: An organisation needs to know why it is collecting biometric information and only collect the information that it needs for that purpose. The collection must be necessary and effective for that purpose.

• Safeguards: Organisations need to implement privacy safeguards before collecting biometric information. Privacy safeguards are measures that reduce privacy risk, ensure transparency and accuracy of the biometric system, and increase the security controls for biometric information.

• Proportionality: An organisation must not collect biometric information unless it believes on reasonable grounds that the

biometric processing is proportionate to the likely impacts on people.

• Openness: Organisations generally need to let people know how their biometric information is going to be used and disclosed so they can make decisions about whether to provide it.

• Use limits: The Code sets limits on what organisations can use biometric information for. For example, organisations may not use a person’s biometric information to detect that person’s health information unless the person specifically authorises it.

Exclusions

The Code will not apply to health agencies that carry out biometric processing to provide someone with health services (they are covered by the Health Information Privacy Code), nor does it generally apply to individuals in their personal capacity, unless there is very high risk.

The Code generally does not apply to personal consumer devices like smartwatches, fitness trackers, or VR headsets, and some specific rules do not apply to the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Security Bureau.

To find out more, visit the OPC website.

Unsung Heroes: Recent recipients of the NZSA Saved a Life Medal

The Saved a Life Medal programme recognises those who demonstrate the very best in security professionalism by taking actions that contribute to the saving of a life.

To mark International Security Officers Day on 24 July 2025, we celebrate the professionalism and service of security officers recently recognised by the New Zealand Security Association as having saved someone’s life:

Tyler Lang, Jordan Faapito, and Leah Karena (P4G Security)

On 30 June, P4G Security staff Tyler Lang, Jordan Faapito and Leah Karena were on duty as part of the P4G Security team based at a mall in Auckland. At approximately 6:34pm, Tyler was in the security office monitoring the CCTV when Leah called and stated a member of the public had approached her and reported that a female was in distress inside the female washrooms near the creche. Tyler instructed Leah to proceed to the location and

requested that Jordan attend given he was closer to the location.

Both were at the site within one minute and Jordan positioned himself outside the washrooms whilst Leah entered with the member of the public who had initially reported the incident. Leah called out “Hello, I’m a female security officer. Is there anyone in here”. A faint voice responded, indicating someone was inside but unable to open the cubicle door.

Using her initiative, Leah found a wooden spoon and used it to manipulate the door lock. On entering the cubicle, she discovered a female hunched over, with a large amount of blood on the floor, and deep lacerations to both wrists. Leah called out to Jordan who entered the washroom to provide assistance.

Whilst Leah provided initial care, Jordan contacted Tyler requesting urgent ambulance attendance and provided

confirmation that the female was still conscious but bleeding profusely.

Tyler called 111 at 6:36pm (two minutes after the initial report) and after talking to emergency services, instructed Jodan to retrieve first aid kits and then called the Mall Risk and Security Manager with a quick summary of the incident, retrieved a further first aid kit and defibrillator, and then proceeded quickly to the scene.

Whilst Leah remained online with the ambulance dispatcher, Tyler and Jordon carefully moved the female to outside of the cubicle and then began applying pressure and bandages to the wounds.

After stabilising the female, Tyler secured the scene (including placing a large knife in a safe location) before liaising with mall management and preparing for ambulance attendance, which had been delayed and eventually arrived at 7:56pm.

Tyler Lang, P4G Security and Glenn Saunders (Risk and Security Manager, client).

Barry Walker, North Island Manager Guard Services and Leah Karena, P4G Security.

Barry Walker, North Island Manager Guard Services and Jordan Faapito, P4G Security.

We congratulate Tyler, Jordan and Leah for their professionalism, outstanding compassion, care and responsiveness in what was a very difficult situation. Their combined efforts without doubt saved the life of the female who had self-harmed.

Manuhuia Bennett and Alhassane Ntibillane (Armourguard Security)

On 12 June at approximately 13:30 Security Officer Manuhuia Bennett was conducting a routine patrol on Level 3 of an apartment building in Wellington CBD when he heard a fire alarm sounding from Level 2. Investigating, he saw smoke seeping from under the door of an apartment. After receiving no response when knocking, CCTV Operator Alhassane Ntibillane confirmed smoke coming from the apartment window.

Manuhuia used his access swipe to enter and found the resident standing in the hallway while the kitchen filled with smoke. Manuhuia instructed the resident to evacuate but was met with aggressive resistance. He led the resident out, but the resident ran back in. Meanwhile, Alhassane activated the fire alarm system from Level 1, triggering the sprinklers.

Manuhuia evacuated and briefed Fire and Emergency NZ upon their arrival, 28 people were safely evacuated. The quick and courageous actions of Manuhuia and Alhassane helped contain a serious fire and protect lives.

Yvonne Kaukasi (Allied Security)

On 28 November 2024, Allied Security Officer Yvonne Kaukasi was

working at a housing facility when she was alerted that a resident had threatened to self-harm.

After her attempts to make contact with the resident were unsuccessful, Yvonne followed the recommended escalation process and attempted to gain access to the resident’s room. To do so she was required to forcefully shift a wardrobe which had been placed to block the door.

On entering the room it was apparent that the resident had attempted suicide and was barely alive. Yvonne immediately made the area safe before contacting emergency services and commencing CPR until the arrival of St Johns Ambulance and the police. Upon arrival of emergency services, she was able to co-ordinate onsite responses, escalate the situation to stakeholders and manage the information flow between parties.

The resident received onsite medical attention before being moved to hospital where she remains in a stable condition.

Yvonne’s ability to respond calmly and effectively, and managing the situation, was a credit to her and there is no doubt she saved the resident’s life.

Joseph Sapatu-Bell, FIRST Security Security Officer

Joseph Sapatu-Bell is employed by First Security and was on duty at the Henderson Train station in December 2024 when he was required to respond to a life-threatening incident.

At approximately 12:21am, Joseph heard a loud bang outside of the station and went to investigate. As he exited the station, he saw a white Honda van leaving the scene and a young male (later identified as being 14 years old) lying on the road covered in blood and with his distressed family gathering around him.

After checking the boy’s vital statistics, Joseph immediately contacted Ambulance and Police services, as well as notifying AOR Station Control. He stayed at the scene, trying to calm the family and ensure the injured boy was not moved, as he was unaware of the injuries that he had sustained.

On arrival of the Police, Joseph provided a formal statement whilst Paramedics resuscitated the injured boy in the ambulance. He then assisted Police in cordoning off the immediate area and restricting access.

Whilst a shocking incident, Joseph’s quick action ensured the boy survived his injuries and Police were able to use the details he provided in making a quick arrest of the driver of the vehicle.

Murray Lauder (Wellington Branch Manager), Alhassane Ntibillane, Armourguard Security.

Yvonne Kaukasi and Sene Fruean, Northland/Auckland Client Services Manager, Allied Security.

Murray Lauder (Wellington Branch Manager), Manuhuia Bennett, Armourguard Security.

Genetec appoints Sektor as New Zealand distributor

Genetec has announced the appointment of leading technology distributor Sektor as its official distribution partner in New Zealand.

This collaboration is aimed at accelerating the growth of physical security solutions across large and mid-market enterprises in both the public and private sectors throughout New Zealand.

With expertise in video management, access control, networking, and analytics, Sektor will offer locally available stock, expert guidance, and exceptional customer support.

As part of the agreement, Sektor will manage Genetec hardware inventory, provide pricing in local currency, deliver supply chain and logistics services, and support the local Return Merchandise Authorisation (RMA) process for the company’s internationally supplied hardware.

In addition, Sektor will open a Genetec Technology Centre in Penrose, Auckland. The centre will offer partners and customers hands-on, interactive access to

Genetec technologies, including video management, access control, license plate recognition, security and communications management, and secure cloud services.

“We are very pleased and excited to be partnering with Genetec to further enhance the security of New Zealand communities and workplaces,” said Hayden Bowtell, General Manager at Sektor.

“To support this partnership, we’re expanding our commercial and technical teams to help drive adoption and integration of advanced physical security solutions nationwide,” he said.

“Genetec and Sektor share a strong focus on people and customer success, making this collaboration a natural fit,” added Country Manager for Oceania, George Moawad at Genetec. “Together, we’re committed to delivering exceptional outcomes, with New Zealand customers now able to benefit from Sektor’s extensive local capabilities and resources.”

According to a LinkedIn post by Sektor, the distributor will offer:

• Local stock and NZD pricing

• Expert advice and hands-on support

• Comprehensive logistics and RMA services

• Seamless integration with Axis Communications

• Live demonstrations of Axis Powered by Genetec at its New Zealand office

Headquartered in Montreal, Canada, Genetec serves its over 42,500 customers via an extensive network of accredited channel partners and consultants in over 159 countries.

Sektor is a specialist technology channel partner delivering innovative and efficient solutions across retail, payments, cybersecurity, networking, healthcare, mobility, and security markets. Its office is located in Penrose, Auckland.

Genetec joins Sektor’s brand lineup, which includes Axis, Teledyne Flir, Avigilon, SAFR, Vaxtor, 2N, Araani, Antrica, Veesion, Isonas, Commend, and MVD.

Hayden Bowtell (Sektor) / Supplied

Genetec global headquarters in Montreal, Quebec, Canada

REACH NEW HEIGHTS in Professional Excellence

ASIS accredited certifications can help you reach your career goals.

Validates your ability to conduct security investigations through the effective use of surveillance, interviews, and interrogations. Designed for those with 5 years of related experience.

WH Y EARN THE PCI DESIGNATION?

• Provides independent confirmation of your specialized skills in security investigations

• Gain global recognition by your peers and industry

• Get a competitive edge in the marketplace

• Enhance your career and earnings potential

• Enjoy personal satisfaction and professional achievement

Be one of the many ASIS board certified practitioners who are leaders, mentors, and trusted strategic partners, serving both their organizations and the profession.

“PCI is an important element in the ASIS C ertification programme, dovetailing into both CPP a nd PSP for a comprehensive understanding of broader security industry objectives. An effective and reliable investigation depends on objectivity, thoroughness, relevance, accuracy and timeliness. PCI helps identify critical investigative outcomes, including evidence collection, case management, and the process of offender detection, iden tification, interview and prosecution. Good physic al security designs, together with robust policies and procedures are key elements in a successful investigation. The PCI certification p rov ides an insight into how these pieces interrelate."

- D avi d H orsburgh, MSc CPP PSP PCI

WHY SHOULD AN EMPLOYER HIRE ASIS CERTIFIED PROFESSIONALS?

• Build a strong, dedicated team committed to high standards and continuing professional development

• Promote ongoing education of critical job knowledge and skills

• Feel confident that your staff are using best practices

• Recruit the most qualified professionals

• Reinforce or elevate your organization’s reputation and credibility

Increase the competency level of your staff by supporting your security professionals in their certification journey.