VOCATIONAL TRAININGVocational Training Can Play a Greater Role in National Security
We talk a lot about resilience and preparedness. But these goals aren’t met solely through top-down directives or university research hubs. They rely on a skilled workforce—one that’s ready to respond across sectors, jurisdictions and threat types. That workforce is increasingly trained not in lecture theatres, but in registered training organizations.
Australia’s national security strategy has evolved significantly in recent years, expanding beyond military and intelligence domains to address cyber threats, critical infrastructure protection and emergency response. But despite its contribution to these areas, the vocational education and training (VET) sector is still flying under the radar.
We talk a lot about resilience and preparedness. But these goals aren’t met solely through top-down directives or university research hubs. They rely on a skilled workforce—one that’s ready to respond across sectors, jurisdictions and threat types. That workforce is increasingly trained not in lecture theatres, but in registered training organizations.
Every year, the Australian VET system trains more than four million learners. These include security officers managing crowd behavior at major events, cyber technicians monitoring suspicious activity on council networks, and aviation screeners enforcing federal security protocols at regional airports. Yet these roles are barely mentioned in most national security strategies.
While cyber security skills are an obvious fit for public-private collaboration, other VET-trained roles offer untapped potential for national resilience. Crowd controllers, skilled in conflict management and situational awareness, could support public safety during major incidents in crowded spaces. Aviation screeners, trained in access control and threat detection, could reinforce critical infrastructure security at short notice during threat escalations. These personnel represent a ready, regulated workforce that could strengthen surge capacity. While not a complete substitute for specialist responders, they are a practical, trained workforce that could be better leveraged in national security planning.
I’ve spent two decades in this space, and the gap is obvious. We have training frameworks for critical roles, but they’re disconnected from national capability planning. The 2023–2030 Cyber Security Strategy is a good example—it rightly prioritizes skills, but focuses largely on higher-education pipelines. Meanwhile, certificate IV and diploma-level graduates in cyber security are already working frontline in small and medium enterprises, as government contractors and in community services.
The same applies to transport and event security. Whether it’s screening freight at a port, managing access to sensitive sites or acting as a visible deterrent in public spaces, VET-trained staff are on the job. But without strategic recognition, we risk underutilizing a huge part of our capability base.
Part of the problem is structural. Security licensing is regulated separately by each state and territory, leading to inconsistent qualification standards, training requirements and licensing conditions across Australia. Although mechanisms such as mutual recognition and temporary permits exist, inconsistent training standards and administrative barriers can delay or prevent the rapid deployment of security personnel across jurisdictions during major events, identified threats, or emergency responses. National advisory bodies rarely include representation from registered training organizations, and while pathways based on recognition of prior learning are allowed, they are underused, especially between related roles in cyber, emergency response and private security. These silos limit mobility and slow down workforce responses during surge events or crises.
So, what can we do?
First, national security frameworks should explicitly recognize VET and registered training organizations as part of the training and readiness landscape. Not as an afterthought, but as a deliberate pillar of workforce capability. It’s not just about funding; it’s about stakeholder engagement, inclusion in planning cycles and better data on role preparedness and training outcomes.
Second, we need to move beyond checklist compliance in training design. We should align units of competency with national threat scenarios—things such as surveillance, crisis response, digital security and multi-agency coordination. There’s precedent for this: some government agencies already fund bespoke programs with private registered training organizations. But these initiatives are patchy and aren’t scaled.
Third, we must make it easier for people to move between related roles. A security officer who’s worked in a stadium control room for five years shouldn’t have to start from scratch if they want to pivot into cyber-threat monitoring or transport security. Recognition of prior learning, short courses and stackable credentials can help here, but only if licensing and curriculum frameworks get on board.
Finally, governments should actively partner with trusted training providers to build surge-ready capacity. We’ve seen this work in practice—during the pandemic and at major public events such as the Commonwealth Games. The VET sector is uniquely placed to deliver contextualized, rapid, job-ready training at scale. Let’s use that.
Australia’s security challenges are only going to grow more complex. Addressing them means thinking differently about capability—not just in terms of defense assets or intelligence platforms, but through the people who keep systems and spaces secure every day.
It’s time to bring vocational education into the national security conversation, because resilience starts with the people who secure our systems and spaces every day.
Mark Costello is the managing director of Asset College, a registered training organization specializing in security, risk, cyber and protective services training. This article is published courtesy of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI).
