PRIVATE SECURITY (SECURITY OFFICERS) REGULATIONS 1998

The instrument operates through several defined or implied concepts. A “security officer” for the purposes of regulation 7 is a person who holds a security officer’s provisional licence or a security officer’s licence under the Act. These two licence types are distinguished by duration and likely by the scope of permitted work, but the regulation itself does not elaborate the difference. The “Director” is the regulatory official under the Act, likely the Director of Licensing, who receives notifications and administers the deed of undertaking particulars.

The central concept is the “disqualifying offence”, which is defined in section 3 of the Act but given content by regulation 2. That regulation prescribes an exhaustive list of offences that make a person ineligible for a licence. The list is not merely serious violent or sexual offences; it includes property offences such as those against sections 211, 212, 227, 228, 229, 231 and 233 of the Criminal Code as in force before the Criminal Code Amendment (Property Offences) Act 2022. This means that an applicant with a conviction under the old property offence provisions is permanently disqualified, even if the same conduct would today be charged under a different section that is not listed. The temporal cut off is a potential trap for persons convicted years before the 2022 amendment. Similarly, subsection (ca) captures old versions of sexual offence provisions that were renumbered or repealed by the 2023 reforms. The static referencing creates a creeping expansion of the disqualifying net as the underlying criminal code evolves.

“Revenue units” are the fee indexation mechanism defined by the Revenue Units Act. At the time of this regulation’s last reprint (25 March 2024), a revenue unit is $1.57 under the Revenue Units Regulations, so 173 units equals about $271.60, 233 units about $365.80, and 298 units about $467.90. These fees apply per application. The reduced fee for multiple licence holders cuts the cost significantly: 100 units ($157) for a one year licence instead of 173. That discount creates an incentive for an individual to obtain multiple licences (perhaps for different categories of security work) but is capped to prevent cumulative discounts.

“Penalty unit” is the standard fine unit under the Penalty Units Act. In the Northern Territory, one penalty unit is currently $157 (as of 2024). Therefore the maximum penalty of 20 penalty units for each offence under regulation 7 is $3,140. That is a substantial sum for an individual, especially given that the offences are essentially regulatory failures such as not updating an address or failing to report a force incident quickly enough.

“Deed of undertaking” is a mechanism under section 50 of the Act by which a security officer gives legally binding promises to the Director, typically concerning conduct or compliance. Regulation 5 prescribes that the deed must record the officer’s name, the licence number, the date of execution, and a summary of undertakings. This is purely administrative: it ensures traceability but does not alter the content of the deed itself.

The regulation directly affects three categories of people. First, individuals who want to become licensed security officers in the Northern Territory, or who already hold a licence and seek renewal. This includes applicants for both a provisional licence (likely a short term or restricted permit) and a full licence. The effect on these individuals is significant: they must supply fingerprints and two passport sized photos, pay a fee that can exceed $460 for a three year licence, and ensure their criminal history contains none of the dozens of listed disqualifying offences. A conviction under any of those sections, even if old or for what some might consider minor property or drug possession offences, permanently bars them from the occupation. This is a heavy labour market restriction that reduces the available pool of security personnel and may particularly affect indigenous and low income applicants who have higher contact with the criminal justice system.

Second, the regulation affects employers of security officers. Employers bear the indirect compliance burden of ensuring that their employees do not misuse uniforms, equipment or identification, and they must receive notifications from officers about any use of force incident. The duty on the officer to report force as soon as practicable transfers information to the employer, who may then face obligations under work health and safety laws or risk management policies. Employers also have an interest in ensuring that their employees’ licences remain current and that address changes are notified, because a lapse could render the employee unlicensed and therefore illegal to deploy.

Third, the Director and the licensing authority are affected because they must process applications, verify fingerprints, check criminal histories against an increasingly complex list of offence references, maintain records of deeds of undertaking, and enforce the regulatory offences. The use of revenue units means the Director’s budget is automatically adjusted for inflation without political negotiation, but the cost of administering biometric checks and cross referencing old criminal code provisions falls on the public purse.

Fourth, the broader public and the security industry are affected indirectly. The disqualifying offence regime is intended to screen out persons with serious criminal records, but the breadth of the list, especially the inclusion of old property offences and drug trafficking offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act, may exclude individuals who pose no ongoing risk to public safety. This reduces competition in the security market and may increase the price of security services. The uniform and equipment restrictions are designed to prevent impersonation and theft, but they also limit an officer’s ability to work for multiple employers or use their own gear, which can suppress independent contracting and labour flexibility.

The regulation imposes three sets of duties. The first set arises before licensing: an applicant must provide two identical passport sized photographs and their fingerprints. This is a mandatory biometric condition for applying, which raises privacy and data security concerns. The fingerprints are held by the Director and presumably used for criminal history checks. There is no opt out.

The second set of duties applies after licensing. A security officer must notify the Director of any change of residential address within 30 days of the change. Failure carries a maximum fine of 20 penalty units. This duty is simple enough but easy to overlook, especially if the officer moves frequently or is not aware of the obligation. The regulation provides no grace period or defence of ignorance. The officer must also notify their employer of any incident in which physical force was used by or against the officer while providing security services, as soon as practicable after the incident occurs. This is a broad obligation. It covers all uses of force, not only those that result in injury or complaint. It applies whether the officer used force or was the victim. The timing standard “as soon as practicable” is fact dependent and leaves room for dispute in enforcement. An officer who fails to report a minor shove in a crowded bar might technically be in breach if a regulator later learns of the incident.

The third set of duties prohibits unauthorised use of employer supplied uniform, equipment or identification. Without authority from the employer, the officer must not wear the uniform, use the equipment, or wear identification. This prevents moonlighting with the employer’s property, but also prevents the officer from using that uniform or equipment for any purpose, even benign ones like wearing the uniform home. The prohibition is absolute and carries the same 20 penalty unit maximum.

The regulation also grants certain rights, though these are implicit rather than stated. An applicant has the right to apply for a licence, and the Director must consider the application under the Act. The fee schedule gives a right to a reduced fee if the applicant already holds another licence under the Act, subject to the anti stacking provision. This reduces the marginal cost of obtaining additional categories of licence. The deed of undertaking provisions give the officer a right to see a summary of their undertakings, though the content of the deed itself is presumably negotiated under the Act.

The regulation does not create any right of review or appeal; those would be found in the Act or in general administrative law.

Each of the three offences in regulation 7 carries a maximum penalty of 20 penalty units. At 2024 rates that is $3,140. The offences are likely strict liability, meaning the prosecution does not need to prove intention or recklessness; the act or omission alone is enough. This is typical for regulatory offences. The penalties are modest compared to the commercial value of a security contract or the cost of a full criminal trial, so they function as a deterrent for minor non compliance rather than a serious criminal sanction.

The real penalty for having a disqualifying offence is not a fine but a complete bar from holding a licence. This is a civil consequence imposed by the Director when processing an application, not a court imposed sanction. It does not require a prosecution. An applicant with a listed conviction will simply be refused. There is no time limit or rehabilitation exception; the disqualification is permanent unless the conviction is quashed or the regulation is amended to remove the relevant offence from the list.

Enforcement of the three offences is likely conducted by police, the Director, or authorised officers under the Act. The address change duty and the force reporting duty are difficult to police without proactive investigation. An officer who fails to notify an address change will only be discovered if the Director checks the electoral roll or receives a returned mail item. The force reporting duty is easier to detect if the employer is aware of the incident and notices that the officer did not report it. However, the officer might report to the employer but the employer may not pass the information to the Director. The regulation imposes the duty on the officer, not the employer.

The penalty for the uniform and equipment prohibition is straightforward if the officer is seen wearing a former employer’s uniform while working for another company. The absence of an authority defence means the officer must have explicit permission from the employer who supplied the items. A blanket policy of “no borrowing” is effectively a zero tolerance rule.

The fee regulations do not carry penalties for non payment; the sanction for not paying the correct fee is that the application or renewal will not be processed. The Director may also cancel a licence if the fee is not paid, but that power comes from the Act, not these regulations.

The regulation exists only as a subordinate instrument under the Private Security Act 1995. Every provision is explicitly linked to a specific section of the Act: regulation 2 for the definition of disqualifying offence, regulation 4 for section 14(5) (information for applications), regulation 5 for section 50(2) (deeds of undertaking), regulation 6 for sections 18(2), 18(3), 24(2) and 25(1A) (fees), and regulation 7 for general enforcement. The Act provides the framework; the regulations fill the gaps. Therefore the Act prevails if there is any inconsistency.

The disqualifying offence list cross references five other NT statutes. The Criminal Code (NT) is the primary source, with over 50 specific sections listed. The Firearms Act 1997 contributes sections relating to firearms offences (sections 59, 61, 63A, 74, 77, 82, 83, 84, 85 and 86). The Misuse of Drugs Act 1990 is referenced broadly via Part II, Division 1, which covers drug trafficking and possession related offences. The Weapons Control Act 2001 contributes sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 (weapons offences). Finally, any Commonwealth offence with a maximum penalty of imprisonment for two years or more is automatically a disqualifying offence. This incorporates federal laws such as the Criminal Code (Cth) and the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) into the disqualification regime by reference.

The interaction with the Criminal Code is complicated by the temporal references in paragraphs (ca), (cb) and (cc). Those paragraphs refer to provisions of the Criminal Code “as in force before” the commencement of specific amending Acts in 2022 and 2023. This means that the regulation creates a static snapshot of older criminal offences. If an applicant was convicted under section 188(2)(k) of the Criminal Code before it was repealed and replaced, that offence remains disqualifying even though the current Code may no longer contain that exact subsection. This can lead to outcomes where a person with an old conviction for conduct that is no longer criminal, or is now a lesser offence, is still barred forever. Conversely, a person convicted after the amendment of a new sexual offence provision that is not listed might escape the disqualification even if the conduct is similar. This static referencing creates legal uncertainty and potential unfairness.

The fee regulation uses revenue units, which ties the dollar amount to the annual indexation set by the Revenue Units Act. This means the fee increases automatically without parliamentary scrutiny of the security licensing regime. Similarly, penalty units are set under the Penalty Units Act, so the fine value also rises automatically.

The regulation does not interact with anti discrimination laws on its face, but the blanket ban on persons with any listed criminal record may interact indirectly with state and federal anti discrimination laws regarding criminal record discrimination. That interaction would be resolved under the Act and any applicable human rights legislation.

The regulations were first made as SL No. 30 of 1998 and notified on 4 August 1998, commencing the same day. The original regulation 2 defining disqualifying offences was narrower and regulation 3 was a separate provision (since repealed). The text has been amended at least eleven times.

The first major amendment was the Private Security (Security Officers) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SL No. 2 of 2006), which substituted regulation 2 entirely, inserted the current regulation 7 creating the three offences, and repealed regulation 3 and the schedule. That revision introduced the address change duty and the force reporting duty. The Treasury Legislation Amendment (Revenue Units) Regulations 2006 (SL No. 33 of 2006) then replaced fixed dollar fee amounts with revenue units, indexing fees to inflation.

The Statute Law Revision Act 2007 (NT Act No. 4 of 2007) made formal amendments to regulation 2, adding or updating cross references. The Fees and Charges Amendment Regulations 2009 (SL No. 34 of 2009) and the Private Security (Security Officers) Amendment Regulations 2013 (SL No. 10 of 2013) adjusted the fee amounts in revenue units.

The Criminal Code Amendment (Identity Crime) Act 2014 (NT Act No. 9 of 2014) amended regulation 2 to add identity crime offences (sections 208H, 208HA, 208HB, 208J, 208JA, 208JB, 208JC, 208JD, 208JE, 208JF, 208JG of the Criminal Code). The Licensing (Repeals and Consequential Amendments) Act 2014 (NT Act No. 44 of 2014) amended references to “Director” throughout, and the Justice Legislation Amendment (Drug Offences) Act 2016 (NT Act No. 17 of 2016) added drug offence cross references.

The Private Security Legislation Amendment Regulations 2017 (SL No. 37 of 2017) updated regulation 2 further. The Licensing (Director-General) Repeal Act 2020 (NT Act No. 4 of 2020) changed references from “Director-General” to “Director” in regulations 5 and 7.

The most recent substantive amendments came in 2023 and 2024. The Criminal Justice Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2023 (NT Act No. 20 of 2023) added paragraphs (ca), (cb) and (cc) to regulation 2, capturing old sexual offence and property offence provisions. The Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (NT Act No. 4 of 2024) amended regulation 2 further to include additional offences from the Criminal Code. The cumulative effect is a steadily expanding disqualification net with increasing complexity in temporal references.

The source text does not mention any litigation under these regulations. The endnotes contain no court decisions, case references, or saving provisions. It is possible that challenges have been made against decisions to refuse licences on the basis of a disqualifying offence, but those would likely be judicial review proceedings under the Act or under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (Cth) if applicable. No such cases are recorded in the regulation itself.

Given the detailed and static nature of the disqualifying offence list, there is potential for litigation arguing that a particular conviction does not fall within the listed offence because of the temporal cut off or because the offence description in the regulation does not precisely match the convicted provision. A court might need to interpret “an offence against section 188(1) of the Criminal Code where a circumstance of aggravation as specified in subsection (2) exists” to determine whether a particular aggravated form is captured. Similarly, the phrase “where a custodial sentence is imposed that is wholly or partially served” in paragraph (c) and (cc) could be litigated over what constitutes “partially served” if the sentence was wholly suspended.

The offence of failing to report a force incident “as soon as practicable” is another candidate for judicial interpretation, especially if the officer was injured or in shock. The maximum penalty of 20 penalty units means that contested prosecutions are likely dealt with in the Local Court, not the Supreme Court, so reported decisions may be scarce.

The fee provisions are administrative and unlikely to generate litigation unless the Director incorrectly calculates the fee or applies the anti stacking rule unfairly. The right to a reduced fee for multiple licence holders could be disputed if the Director takes the view that a provisional licence is not “another licence” for the purpose of the reduction.

The disqualifying offence list contains several traps. The most insidious is the static temporal referencing in paragraphs (ca), (cb) and (cc). An applicant who was convicted in 2021 under section 188(2)(k) of the Criminal Code (as it then stood) is permanently disqualified under the regulation, even though the numbering and content of that section may have changed in 2023. Similarly, a person convicted under old property offence sections before the 2022 amendment is caught, while someone convicted of the same conduct under the new section numbers after the amendment may not be. This creates a category of permanently excluded persons based on the date of conviction and the outdated legal framework.

The address change duty is triggered by changing residential address. This does not include a change of work address or postal address, but only residential. The officer must notify the Director within 30 days. There is no de minimis exception for short term moves. The penalty applies even if the officer’s mail is still forwarded or if the Director would not have taken any different action.

The force reporting duty applies to “an incident in which physical force was used by or against the security officer while the security officer was providing his or her services as a security officer”. This covers all force, not just reportable force under workplace policies. A minor scuffle that does not result in injury still triggers the duty. The phrase “as soon as practicable” gives no safe harbour; 24 hours might be acceptable, two weeks might not. The officer bears the risk of a late report.

The uniform and equipment prohibition is absolute: without authority from the employer, the officer cannot wear the uniform, use the equipment, or wear identification. This applies even if the employer has gone out of business or the officer is working for a new employer who has no objection. Authority must come from the employer who supplied the items. There is no implied licence. An officer who keeps a uniform from a previous job as a souvenir commits an offence if they ever wear it.

The reduced fee for multiple licence holders contains an anti stacking provision: if the applicant has already received a reduced fee for another licence under a similar provision elsewhere, the reduction does not apply again. This prevents a person with two licences from getting two discounts, but it also means that paying a reduced fee for one licence may disqualify the holder from a subsequent reduction for a second licence. The interplay between different types of licences under the Act could be confusing.

The use of revenue units means the dollar fee increases each year by ministerial determination, not by legislative amendment. An applicant who budgets for a $271.60 fee in one year may face a higher amount the next year. The fee for a three year licence is not simply three times the one year fee; the three year fee of 298 units is about 1.72 times the one year fee, giving a discount for longer commitment. However, if the officer leaves the industry early, the upfront cost is lost.

For a person seeking a security officer licence in the Northern Territory, the first step is to check whether they have any disqualifying criminal convictions. This requires comparing their criminal history against the list in regulation 2. Because the list includes offences from several Acts and also incorporates any Commonwealth offence with a two year imprisonment maximum, a comprehensive criminal history check is necessary. The applicant should obtain a police clearance certificate from NT Police and, for Commonwealth offences, a national police check. If the applicant has any conviction under the listed sections, they cannot be granted a licence and should not apply, as the application will be refused and the fee forfeited.

The applicant must provide two identical passport sized photographs and their fingerprints. The fingerprints must be taken by an authorised person, likely at a police station or an accredited fingerprinting service. The cost of obtaining fingerprints is separate from the application fee. The photographs must meet standard passport photo specifications.

The application fee must be paid at the time of application. The applicant should calculate the correct fee based on whether they hold any other licence under the Act and whether that other licence was issued at a reduced fee. If the applicant holds another licence that was not reduced, they can claim the reduced fee for the new licence. If the other licence was already reduced, the full fee applies.

Once licensed, the security officer must ensure they never use their employer’s uniform, equipment or identification without explicit authority. This means not wearing the uniform outside of work, not using the employer’s baton or radio for personal purposes, and not wearing the company ID badge when not on duty. If the officer changes employers, they must return all property to the previous employer and not use it for the new employer unless expressly authorised.

The officer must notify the Director of any change of residential address within 30 days. This can be done by letter, email or online if the Director’s system allows. The notification should include the officer’s name, licence number, old address and new address. Keeping a record of the notification is advisable.

In any incident where physical force is used by or against the officer while on duty, the officer must notify their employer as soon as practicable. The best practice is to report immediately by phone or in person, and then follow up with a written report within 24 hours. The report should include details of the incident, the parties involved, and whether any force was used by the officer. The employer may maintain their own incident register. The officer should keep a personal copy of the report.

If the officer is executing a deed of undertaking under section 50 of the Act, the Director must include the prescribed particulars: the officer’s name, licence number, date of execution, and a summary of the undertakings. The officer should verify that these details are correct before signing.

For renewals, the fee schedule applies again. The officer should apply for renewal before the licence expires; the fee must be paid for the chosen period (one, two or three years). The address and force reporting duties continue after renewal. The disqualifying offence list applies at each renewal; if the officer is convicted of a disqualifying offence while licensed, they become ineligible and must cease work immediately.