Security 2030 Report Warns Of Serious Capability Gap

Security 2030 Report Warns Of Serious Capability Gap In Australia Driven By Staff Shortages, Unsustainable Margins, Fragmented Regulation And Runaway Technological Change.

Security 2030 Report Warns Of Serious Capability Gap – According to Security 2030, a 5-year outlook for Australia’s private security industry from the Security & Intelligence Research Group at Edith Cowan University, Australia’s private security industry is heading towards significant growth but workforce shortages, unsustainably low margins, fragmented (no) regulation and the accelerating pace of technological change threaten the industry’s ability to develop capability the future requires.

The report describes workforce capability as a structural problem rather than a temporary labour shortage. At the core of the issue is the fact lots of experienced security people are retiring taking decades of operational knowledge with them, yet the industry is not developing the next generation quickly enough to replace lost capability.

Edith Cowan's researchers argue this is particularly important in the security industry because much operational capability is accumulated through long exposure to risk and major incidents. At the same time, the skills required are evolving as physical security becomes more closely integrated with digital solutions.

The commercial environment presents another challenge. According to the researchers, margins in protective security are too low to sustain the services increasingly expected by customers and regulators. It’s fair to say cost-averse users bear significant responsibility for this issue.

The report’s recommendations include minimum viable margin floors, capability-based prequalification, stronger enforcement and higher award rates, along with measures designed to strengthen professional development across the industry.

Unsurprisingly to industry people, the researchers found regulation is struggling to keep pace with the changing security environment, though in fairness, this has always been the case. Does regulation in the security industry exist? Generally, we think not. The report also finds security technologies are being introduced faster than regulatory, workforce and professional frameworks can respond.

This gap between new tech, regulation and training is becoming more important as AI, biometrics, cloud platforms and connected security systems become symbiotic. At the same time, governance obligations associated with the protection of critical infrastructure are increasing requirements on security providers who are ill-equipped to conceive them.

Despite the challenges, Security 2030 forecasts considerable underlying industry growth. Australian private security industry revenue is estimated at $A11.22 billion in 2025 and is expected to reach $11.82 billion by the end of 2026, before increasing to $14.59 billion by 2030.

The number of licensed security personnel is forecast to increase from 170,698 to more than 200,000, representing growth of around 17.2 per cent.

Electronic security is expected to be among the strongest areas of expansion. Video surveillance is forecast to be the fastest-growing security segment at around 8 per cent CAGR through the period, while monitoring services are expected to grow at around 6 per cent. Guarding and cash-in-transit are forecast to grow more slowly at around 4-5 per cent.

Security system monitoring represents a substantial market with revenue is projected to increase from $1.77 billion in 2025 to $2.37 billion in 2030, representing CAGR of 6.1 per cent.

The report doesn't mention access control specifically but it's definitely growing, as the plethora of competitors in the access space attests. The smart home and alarm sector is growing, too, pushed ahead by the development of clever sensors, controllers, AI powered cameras and nalytics-based interfaces.

The report doesn't delve into growth rates in these areas but we think these areas are expanding at between 8-10 per cent driven by new builds, upgrades of older alarm systems and topical applications of remotely accessible smart devices, including standalone stuff like video doorbells.

The report identifies AI-enabled surveillance, cloud-hosted access control, virtual guarding and remote monitoring as specific technologies that increasingly allow providers to move beyond manpower and electronic security systems, though exactly how these elements are separated from their role of detection and response is hard to say.

SEN thinks tech allows triage and scratches an heliocopter manager's remote monitoring itch. Outside this, intrusion, monitoring and response are core - analytics might make these functions more discerning saving wasted response to false alarms but it cannot replace proactive elements.

In any case, customers are expected by Edith Cowan reseachers to increasingly purchase security performance, intelligence, governance and assurance that is supported by connected technology and remote services - we'd agree with this.

The report doesn't predict that new technology will remove the requirement for security personnel, however. Instead it argues technology will extend the reach and capability of security teams, while human judgement will remain important where security decisions and physical intervention are required.

There's a quirk here, in SEN's opinion, because most end users deploy analytics and automated solutions in a bid to reduce costs, not as part of a strategy to sharpen the pointy ends of security procedures. Can tech make the response of human teams faster? Sure it can, but only if operational procedures enshrine this. If the people don't exist, operational procedures are investigative, not proactive.

From a business perspective the report outlines a division within the supply side of the industry moving forward. Providers capable of delivering AI, cloud platforms, remote monitoring and increasingly 'intelligent' electronic security systems should increasingly win out. Businesses unable to compete will shrink.

Convergence is another major theme of the report. Critical infrastructure is generating increasing demand for cyber-physical security assurance, while industrial verticals mining and remote operations are experiencing closer convergence between physical security and operational technology. We'd add solar, wind farms and remote council sites to category, based on oversight of tenders.

Within electronic security, the continuing transition from analogue infrastructure towards IP-based systems is being extended by AI-enabled video surveillance and access control. The report argues AI and analytics are increasingly able to turn cameras and other sensors into sources of operational intelligence rather than simply recording devices - this is true, but we think there are layers in analytics.

Biometrics is part of this transition, although its expansion also illustrates the regulatory challenge facing the industry. The report identifies facial recognition governance as an area where technology adoption is creating additional compliance requirements alongside growing surveillance and access control capabilities.

Among the report's recommendations is development of a technology adoption maturity framework covering AI, biometrics and data governance, reflecting the report's view that future security capability will depend on governance and professional competence as much as access to technology itself.

This is a key recommendation. Peak bodies, suppliers and commercial and government end users need to work together to advocate for and not only promote but develop coherent governance in areas of turbocharged development and not inconsiderable risk. Such a partnership does not exist, however, and it's hard to imagine such a group ever coming into being.

Critical infrastructure is expected to generate sustained demand as SOCI and PSPF requirements expand. Government and defence security requirements are also increasing, with AUKUS contributing to higher security expectations extending through contractor and supplier networks.

Mining and resources present another opportunity, particularly in remote operations where physical security, OT, communications and supply-chain risks increasingly intersect. Again we'd put remote energy generation forward here, as well as automated bushfire management solutions.

Retail security is expected to become increasingly intelligence-led as organisations respond to theft, organised retail crime and weapon-related incidents. This is likely to increase demand for AI surveillance and technologies capable of identifying events and behaviours rather than relying exclusively on conventional recording and post-event investigation.

Crowded places and major events represent another substantial area of demand. The report identifies Brisbane 2032 as the largest bounded security demand event between now and 2030, while recent attacks have increased expectations around the protection of crowded places.

And investigations, risk advisory and security governance services are also expected to expand as organisations attempt to understand and comply with increasingly complex regulatory and operational requirements.

One of the less obvious challenges identified by Security 2030 is the industry's continuing difficulty to "explain what it does". According to researchers, private security is still widely perceived as a guarding industry, despite encompassing electronic security, systems integration, risk advisory, investigations, resilience, intelligence and sophisticated converged technologies.

While we're not convinced this is true in commercial and government verticals, the report argues limited understanding amongst users has practical consequences for providers. It reduces engagement and investment at executive level and makes it harder for the industry to attract talented people into roles that are becoming progressively more technical and specialised.

We'd agree with these latter assertions. Security is not taken seriously at a corporate management level - certainly not as seriously as operations is taken - right up until an organisation faces a catastrophic security or safety incident that threatens its operational continuity, that is.

This disparity between the security function's ability to control risk and the respect its operatives are shown at a management level is evidenced in the way SEN sees many security solutions pitched internally. Systems are touted to the corporate level as operations, safety, governance, people management, space management - anything but security.

The report suggests the Australian security industry is approaching 2030 with strong demand and it cannot service. Revenue is increasing and technology is expanding what security systems and providers can deliver.

Yet at this delicate moment of technological accelerationalism there's the need to replace an ageing pool of highly experienced practitioners. We all know this is true - there's an entire generation of security people who will age out of the business over the next 5-7 years.

Further, the industry needs to create eduational platforms that - let's be honest - simply don't exist outside the necessarily product-biased courses of manufacturers and suppliers.

Making the challenges more entertaining, the industry needs to elevate margins to support investment in training end users don't want to pay for, to introduce national regulation with teeth that can bite double-minded company directors and to create a top to bottom governance framwork that allows safe use of scary technologies developing faster than any of us can keep up.

The report states that licensing is the only enforceable compliance floor and points out that floor is set too low. Many would argue that licensing is rarely if ever enforced and the licensing governance bodies are not really set up to undertake enforcement.

The report recommends the enacting of a nationally consistent security licensing standard - this sounds a good idea. It would be an even better idea if licensing compliance governors - state police departments - had actual teeth. We can't blame them that they don't, as tempting as this always is.

Something the report does not mention, or that I missed, is that the technologial convergence of IT and electronics means that many IT providers are deep into the security industry but are not security licensed.

This does not mean a capable IT company is not able to diversify into security provision but if they do so unlicensed with no consequences it erodes industry faith in regulators and peak bodies who are seen to be ignoring a raft of new unlicensed competitors, many of whom do not have a security mindset, or appropriate insurance.

Licensing bodies and industry associations are simply seen as revenue raising operations if they do not police the licensing standards that justify their existence. This is a tough area. From an admin perspective, it's much easier to do licensing than to go to war with every security and IT provider that sails too close to the wind. However, licensing bodies should have an investigative arm tasked with exposing the worst licensing offenders and they should be shouting about it from the hilltops.

We like the Security 2030 Report. It speaks honestly about real issues many in the security industry have been talking about for years. In our opinion it supposes the existence of key elements that have never exisited and likely never will - training, regulation, technological governance. In the security industry such concepts are mere chimera. Why? Because they are too expensive.

Regardless, the Security 2030 Report creates momentum for the serious conversations the security industry needs to be having with itself over the next 5 years.

You find the Security 2030 Report here or read more SEN news here.

“Security 2030 Report Warns Of Serious Capability Gap Driven By Staff Shortages, Fragmented Regulation And Runaway Technological Change.”

Security 2030 Report Warns Of Serious Capability Gap - Security 2030 Report Warns Of Serious Capability Gap