The Deputy Commissioner of New South Wales Police has formally rejected proposals to permit private security firms tasked with protecting Jewish community events to carry firearms. The decision, delivered during testimony this week, centers on the argument that granting such permissions to a specific community’s security apparatus could be perceived as “favouritism,” potentially undermining the uniform application of law enforcement standards across the state.
The testimony took place during proceedings of the royal commission into antisemitism and social cohesion, a high-level inquiry currently reviewing the security arrangements and systemic protections afforded to the Jewish community in the wake of escalating tensions.
The Dispute Over Armed Security
The core of the disagreement lies in the request by representatives of the Jewish community to allow specialized private security personnel—who often guard synagogues, schools, and community centers—to be armed. Proponents of the move argue that the nature of the threats facing Jewish institutions requires a more robust, immediate deterrent than unarmed security can provide.
However, the NSW Police Deputy Commissioner testified that the state cannot grant a carve-out for private actors based on the community they serve. The Deputy Commissioner argued that allowing a specific group to carry firearms for the protection of one religious or ethnic community would create a precedent of preferential treatment. From the police perspective, the authority to carry firearms is a strictly regulated state privilege, and extending it to private security for a specific demographic would be seen as an uneven application of the law.
The police leadership maintains that the responsibility for high-level security and the use of lethal force remains the sole province of the state. By denying the request, the NSW Police are asserting that the current regulatory framework for firearms and private security must remain blind to the specific identity of the clients being protected.
Why the Decision Matters
This refusal highlights a critical friction point between community-led risk assessment and state-mandated security protocols. For the Jewish community, the request for armed security is not framed as a desire for special privilege, but as a necessary response to a documented increase in antisemitic threats and targeted harassment.
The decision to prioritize the avoidance of “favouritism” suggests that the NSW Police view the potential for social or political friction—resulting from the perception of unequal treatment—as a greater risk than the specific security vulnerabilities cited by the community. This creates a paradox where the state’s commitment to institutional parity may, in the eyes of the affected community, result in a security gap that leaves them more exposed to violence.
Furthermore, the testimony underscores the limits of private security in Australia. While private firms can provide surveillance, access control, and physical deterrence, they are legally distanced from the state’s monopoly on violence. The Deputy Commissioner’s stance reinforces the boundary that private security is intended to supplement, not replicate, the capabilities of the police.
Background and Context
The royal commission into antisemitism and social cohesion was established to address a surge in hate crimes and a perceived decline in social harmony. The inquiry is examining how state institutions, including the police, have responded to the rise of antisemitism and whether current security measures are sufficient to protect minority communities from targeted attacks.
In recent years, Jewish institutions across Australia have reported an increase in security incidents, leading to the installation of reinforced fencing, CCTV, and the hiring of private security guards. Many of these guards are former law enforcement or military personnel who possess the training to use firearms but are legally prohibited from doing so while working in a private capacity.
The debate over arming private security is not unique to the Jewish community, but it has become a focal point due to the specific nature of the threats. The NSW Police have historically resisted the “privatization” of armed response, fearing that an increase in firearms in public spaces—even in the hands of trained professionals—could lead to accidental shootings, escalation of conflict, or a general erosion of public safety standards.
Analysis:
The framing of this issue as “favouritism” by the NSW Police reflects a rigid adherence to bureaucratic neutrality. By utilizing this terminology, the police are shifting the conversation from a security-based analysis (risk vs. mitigation) to a procedural one (equity vs. preference). This approach effectively neutralizes the community’s evidence of increased risk by placing it within a framework of administrative fairness.
This suggests an institutional reluctance to acknowledge that different communities may face asymmetrical threats. When the state applies a “one size fits all” policy to security, it may inadvertently ignore the specific needs of populations targeted by hate-motivated violence. The tension here is between the state’s desire for a uniform legal landscape and the community’s need for specialized protection. By prioritizing the appearance of impartiality, the NSW Police are signaling that the principle of regulatory parity outweighs the request for enhanced defensive capabilities.
What to Watch Next
As the royal commission continues its proceedings, several key areas will likely emerge as points of contention:
First, the commission will likely scrutinize whether the NSW Police are providing adequate state-funded security to compensate for the refusal to arm private guards. If the community cannot arm its own security, the burden falls entirely on the police to provide a visible and responsive presence.
Second, the inquiry may examine the specific intelligence regarding threats to Jewish institutions. If the commission finds that the threat level is significantly higher than what current unarmed security can handle, it may issue recommendations that pressure the police to reconsider their stance or create a new, highly regulated category of “specialized security” that does not trigger the “favouritism” concern.
Finally, the outcome of this testimony may influence how other minority communities approach security. If the state maintains a hard line against community-specific armed security, it may lead to increased calls for greater state funding and a permanent police presence at high-risk sites.
Conclusion
The NSW Police Deputy Commissioner’s testimony marks a definitive boundary in the state’s approach to community security. By rejecting the proposal to arm private Jewish security groups on the grounds of avoiding favouritism, the police have reaffirmed the state’s exclusive control over firearms. While this maintains a standard of legal uniformity, it leaves the Jewish community to navigate an increasingly volatile security environment with tools that they argue are insufficient for the current threat landscape. The final report of the royal commission will determine whether this institutional stance is viewed as a necessary safeguard of the law or a failure to protect a vulnerable population.
Sources:
The Guardian World: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/jul/27/nsw-police-deputy-commissioner-says-letting-jewish-security-group-carry-guns-could-be-seen-as-favouritism-ntwnfb
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: The Guardian World — source
