In June 2025, a service station in Northland, New Zealand, lost nearly 2,000 litres of fuel in two overnight thefts. Offenders accessed the underground tanks directly, an organised operation requiring knowledge, planning and equipment. Across Auckland, aggravated robberies at petrol stations have tripled in three years, targeting sites with minimal deterrents and inconsistent controls.

These incidents expose a larger truth: infrastructure fragility is rarely about sophistication, it’s about inconsistency. One weak site doesn’t just invite loss; it compromises the entire network.

In many industries, banking, logistics, fuel and retail, growth has outpaced governance. Security frameworks have been inherited over time, shaped by acquisitions, legacy systems and uneven investment. Some sites operate with modern surveillance and access control, while others rely on outdated or manual measures. This fragmentation creates blind spots, the exact gaps that opportunists learn to find and exploit.

Criminals don’t exploit complexity; they exploit inconsistency. When standards vary, predictability increases. Offenders look for patterns, the unlit forecourt, the unmonitored delivery gate, the unsecured access point and act where resistance is lowest.

Best practice isn’t reactive; it’s systemic.
Resilience requires treating physical security as critical infrastructure:

• Standardise systems across all locations.
• Centralise oversight and incident data.
• Audit and enforce compliance as rigorously as financial controls.

Consistent security isn’t an expense, it’s an operational necessity. The same structures that protect assets also strengthen performance and accountability.

The same structures that protect assets also strengthen performance and accountability. Criminal tactics evolve fast. The organisations that remain secure are those that design for consistency and act before the gaps appear.

By David Morrissey

Link to Original Article