June 2002 Volume 83 Number 6 "serving the protectors"
Thickening the thin blue line
By Police Federation of Australia CEO, Mark Burgesss

The lines of demarcation between the states and the federal government are, insofar as policing, becoming blurred. And, with the implementation of national road rules, as well as work currently underway on a national criminal code, those same lines appear to be thinning.

CrimTrac – the national database of fingerprints, DNA and sex offenders – was set up with $50 million funding from the federal government. Already, problems have emerged with the implementation of consistent legislation across the states in relation to CrimTrac. Some jurisdictions have argued that the programme should be maintained through federal rather than state funding.

In the lead-up to last year’s election, Prime Minister Howard argued that interagency co-operation was not as effective as it could be for the national interest. He is quoted as saying: “I believe the current environment calls for far greater co-ordination and a much clearer definition of the role of the commonwealth in the area of day-to-day law enforcement” (The Australian, October 29, 2001).

Local candidates of all political persuasions campaigned in the federal election on a traditionally distinctive state-based law-and-order platform. Why? Obviously local policing is failing to satisfy local community needs and expectations.

It is important to formulate a national policy on supplementing and assisting local policing initiatives with federal government funding, as well as increasing funding for federal police. This will ensure all parties who have an influence on local law enforcement share the burden.

Many might argue that one way to supplement local law enforcement is through private policing. This is a proposition the PFA rejects as a completely unsatisfactory solution.

ABS figures show that 1,714 businesses existed in the security services industry at the end of June 1999. They employed 31,752 people. In 1998-99, the industry’s total income was almost $1.4 billion, with an operating profit margin of 6.5 per cent.

In the same year, the number of sworn police officers was 43,048.

There are many reasons for the explosion in private policing across Australia – and the rest of the Western world. The Australian community accepts that private police can and should perform some roles. It is adamant, however, that, in its local areas, it wants traditional policing services such as street patrols.

Community concerns about the proliferation of private policing are many, and include:
Accountability – Private policing services are accountable to whoever hires them, and the owners or shareholders of the private policing company. Private policing is about those companies making profits. Public law enforcement is funded from the public purse and has an array of oversight bodies. It is policing by the community and for the community, with direct community input to its operations. By contrast, there are few processes of accountability for the misuse of private police bodies; and those who pay the bills dictate what will be done.
Inequality – Those who most rely on policing services would have the least ability to pay.

Why should the federal government be asked to supplement state and federal police budgets?

It is already recognized that, currently, one of this country’s greatest threats is illicit drugs. Their importation is generally seen as a federal issue. Once they hit our streets, however, they usually become a problem for local police to combat.

And it is not just the illegality of the drugs. State and territory police deal every day in their communities with the associated problems of drug dependence – robberies, break-and-enter offences and the like. Insurance premiums increase, and the Bureau of Crime Statistics often speaks of “costs to the community”.

South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde summed it up succinctly when he said: “We can only solve our crime problem if we address our drug problem.”

Likewise, we are seeing the increased importation of firearms – particularly handguns and other prohibited weapons – as well as various chemicals to make illicit drugs. All these ultimately have a detrimental impact on local communities.

More recently, the issues of immigration and detention centres have had an impact on local policing services.

Because these centres exist in isolated locations, a significant impact in both financial and human-resource terms is being felt by local policing services.

As an example, the detention centre in Curtin, Western Australia, is 40km south of Derby, where only 17 WA police officers are stationed. The centre is located on the Curtin RAAF base, which comes under federal police jurisdiction. Until recently, only one federal police officer was stationed at Broome. Curtin is approximately 200km from Broome, 250km from Fitzroy Crossing, and has facilities to accommodate up to 1,300 detainees.

Aspects of the impact on police include:

• The necessity to recall staff to duty when an incident occurs.
• Cost implications for local police of overtime, meals and use of their vehicles.
• Other areas left without appropriate policing services when neighbouring police respond to problems at Curtin.
• The need to assist federal police with investigations, interviews, preferring charges and court appearances.

The threat of terrorism is already having a significant impact on police. An example of this is the decision to implement “air marshals”. The PFA view is that air marshals should be sworn police officers. Why was the decision taken to use Australian Protective Services? No doubt the reason was that the already stretched resources of the AFP would not have been able to cope.

Anecdotal evidence gained through federal polling indicates that crime and drugs are at the forefront of the community’s priorities. These same concerns were raised in the United States in the early 1990s.

What therefore can the federal government do?

During the State of the Union address in 1994, President Clinton made a pledge to the American people to add 100,000 community police officers to the streets. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (VCCA) passed Congress with strong bipartisan support. A groundswell of support came from local law enforcement and, in September 1994, Clinton signed the act into law.

VCCA was viewed as the most comprehensive piece of federal crime-control legislation in US history. It authorized $8.8 billion over six years for grants to add an additional 100,000 community policing officers to the nation’s streets and advance community policing nationwide. The body charged with fulfilling the mission of adding the extra police was the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office of the US Department of Justice.

Clinton’s 21st Century Policing Initiative not only gained the support of every major law enforcement organization nationwide, but also gained support from the US Conference of Mayors.

A further programme was added called COPS MORE (Making Officer Redeployment Effective). It was designed to expand the time available for community policing by current law enforcement officers through the funding of technology, equipment and support staff, including civilian personnel.

This programme provided law enforcement agencies with grants of up to 75 per cent of the total cost of technology, equipment or civilian salaries for one year. Agencies were therefore required to provide a minimum cash-match of 25 per cent.

Why should the Australian federal government be expected to provide funding of this nature to local police jurisdictions?

Historically, the federal government never funded, to any great extent, health or education, until, over time, it became obvious that state governments could not provide all of the necessary funding in these important areas. The PFA argues that law enforcement is currently experiencing like circumstances.

Clearly, many federal issues are now impacting on community policing. Federal politicians are engaging in the law-and-order debate and the financial contribution by federal governments of both persuasions over the years has left a lot to be desired.

Total recurrent expenditure by jurisdiction for the 1999-2000 year was:

• New South Wales	$ 1,452,584,000
• Victoria	$ 1,067,734,000
• Queensland	$ 767,416,000
• Western Australia	$ 465,304,000
• South Australia	$ 342,798,000
• Tasmania	$ 100,688,000
• Northern Territory	$ 99,707,000
• Federal Policing Operations   (including ACT)	$ 380,000,000
Total Australian Law Enforcement	$ 4,676,231,000

The table above indicates that in pure policing terms, the federal government’s contribution to law and order in Australia was just over 8% – a totally insufficient amount.

In the federal government’s pre-election policy announcements, it foreshadowed greater funding and resourcing for the Australian Federal Police by $135 million over four years, with $47 million of that amount to place extra officers overseas.

It has, since the election, proposed an FBI model of policing that, in itself, would require significant extra funding.

The PFA argues that these proposals will do little to enhance the comfort of communities which are already living in fear of rising crime rates. The extra funding proposed pre-election does not go far enough for the federal police, let alone make available any additional funding for state jurisdictions. And the FBI model is, for Australia, totally inappropriate.

The PFA argues that the federal government must make itself aware of the precarious situation policing services currently face in this country. It should also be aware of its obligation to work with the states and federal police to restore policing services to acceptable levels, with acceptable resources in all jurisdictions Australia-wide.

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