October 2001 Volume 82 Number 10 "serving the protectors"
Your Association Tomorrow

Police Federation of Australia CEO, Mark Burgess, has warned that all Australian police associations face major challenges, including that of private policing. He made his announcement in an address to the Northern Territory Police Association annual conference in August. This is an edited version of his speech.

The lines of demarcation between the states and territories and the federal government are becoming blurred. We have recently seen the implementation of national road rules. There are plans afoot for a national criminal code. CrimTrac, a national database of fingerprints, DNA and sex offenders, was set up with funding of $50 million from the federal government. Already, we have seen some of the states and territories suggesting that the federal government maintain CrimTrac through federal funding, as opposed to state or territory funding.

If the federal government is asked to fund more of this type of initiative, it will want more say in local law enforcement. What will that mean to the independence of each jurisdiction, and what will be the impact on state and territory police associations?

By early next year, we could see one side of politics in power in almost every state and territory, as well as federally. Think about what that might mean: virtually all politicians in power across the country having the same or similar philosophical views on a range of issues, including policing and the federal government able to “buy” what it wants in respect of input into traditional state and territory issues.

What is the police union movement doing at a national level to prepare itself should this eventuate?

Through its strategic plan, the PFA has changed its focus. In part its plan reads:

The Police Federation of Australia, on behalf of its 43,000 members, has worked hard at establishing a relationship of influence with the Commonwealth Government in order to ensure that our voice is properly heard during any debate on issues that affect policing. To achieve this outcome on behalf of the police profession, we realized there was a need to become pro-active in a strategic manner. It is therefore not by accident that we now see our primary role in non-industrial issues involving policing. Issues which we are focusing on are those which are considered important to respective police unions and their members, but to some extent impracticable for any one union to take sole responsibility.

Nationally, we are moving into a new arena - that of political lobbying and professional development, as opposed to strictly industrially based issues.

What other issues may have a significant impact on us in the next few years?

The notion of common core competencies universally supported, hold some wonderful opportunities for our members but, at the same time, they pose some potential threats.

The opportunity will arise for the transfer of those competencies, not only into other policing jurisdictions but, in the future, other occupations outside of policing. Another opportunity is the continued “professionalization” of policing. The threat, of course, is that some will see opportunities to “back door” their way into policing, and some police jurisdictions may attempt to use them in a punitive instead of developmental manner.

An issue that flows from common core competencies - seen as a threat by some and an opportunity by others - is the potential to rationalize police training and recruitment across the country. If we all require like skills and educational qualifications, why would every jurisdiction need a training academy and recruitment section?

Another flow-on effect that can be seen as both an opportunity and a threat is that of lateral entry at junior levels of the organization. In future, what will prevent a senior constable in Victoria applying for a sergeant’s job in the Northern Territory? And, what will prevent a sergeant in Northern Territory applying for an inspector’s job in New Zealand?

What about “private policing”? Private policing is, potentially, the greatest threat to professional policing.

Federal Shadow Justice Minister Duncan Kerr, in a speech at the Police Association of South Australia this year, indicated that - according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics - at the end of June 1999, there were 1,714 businesses in the security services industry, which employed 31,752 people. The total income of the industry in 1998-99 was almost $1.4 billion, with an operating profit margin of 6.5 per cent.

In the same year, there were 43,048 sworn police officers.

I suggest the number of private security and sworn police would be close to equal by June this year.

Kerr posed a number of other questions about this threat. They include:

• Will private policing patrols attempt to become involved in bringing offenders within the criminal justice system, or will their role be simply to deter and disperse criminal activity?
• How will the priorities and actions of private patrols be determined? If it is by the clients who have paid for their services, by what mechanism will those who can’t afford to pay be able to have a say in the patrols’ activities?
• If police patrols were replaced by private patrols, what would happen if the purchaser of that private policing withdrew his or her financial support for the private security?
• What will happen when groups who pay for private security start insisting that, since they don’t use the public police system they should no longer have to pay to support it - as is starting to happen in the US?

Two other issues of great concern with regard to private policing are:

• Accountability - public policing is under constant public scrutiny and the public can demand accountability through in-built mechanisms, including an army of oversight bodies. By contrast, there are few processes of accountability for the misuse of private police bodies.
• Inequality - if policing is provided only where private individuals and corporations cannot afford their own private protection services, public policing will cease to be funded adequately. Ironically, it is those who rely on policing services the most that will be least likely able to avail themselves of such services.

The way governments are beginning to view paying for their policing services supports our concerns about private policing.

In the UK, the Blair Government has changed the way it funds its police from the model, Compulsory Competitive Tendering - or the least cost option - to the model, Best Value.

Best Value is based on what they call the four Cs:

• Challenge - not only why the service is being delivered at all but also, if required, could it be delivered by an alternative supplier or in an improved way by the police.
• Compare - the service’s performance against external organizations.
• Consult - with those receiving the service to ensure that it is meeting their needs and expectations.
• Compete - where applicable the service should be open to competition from alternative providers.

Some elements of Best Value carry a real threat of duties and functions being hived off to the private sector. This threat is most likely when only pure cost is measured and the wider, and more pertinent criteria of “value” is underplayed or ignored.

In the UK at present, there is real concern that the privatization of public services, particularly policing, is high on the government’s agenda, and moves of that nature in the UK are likely to find great support by governments in both Australia and New Zealand.

You need to ensure your association of the future is ready to grasp the opportunities for the benefit of your members and the community, and confront the potential threats.

How is that done?

How well is the Northern Territory Police Association organized in the field, and what would be its member commitment to a major struggle?

What would be your ability to withstand a decision by government to introduce individual workplace contracts for members or to cease payroll deductions for your association subscriptions - tomorrow?

Does your membership view itself as “the association”, or is “the association”, in their view, a building in Darwin and a few senior officials? In other words, is the association a third party - the employer, employees and the association all as separate entities? It is a strategy of police services and governments to paint associations as separate entities from their members. I was always of the view that the employees and the association were one. But do all our members see it that way?

How skilled are your local officials in being able to deal with member representation in the workplace?

Have all workplaces throughout the Northern Territory got elected association representatives?

How many members are activists? How many are apathetic? And how many are antagonistic towards your association? A strategy to increase the number of activists and decrease the number of apathetic and antagonistic members must be a priority for the NTPA if there is going to be a “tomorrow”.

PASAweb   Index & Search   Top of Page   Comments   Email to Editor

The Police Journal Online is an official publication of the Police Association of South Australia and is published monthly. Editors of kindred publications can seek permission from the Editor to re-publish any Police Journal Online article. Copyright 2001  The Police Association of South Australia sustance