By Mark Burgess
Chief Executive Officer
Police Federation of Australia
A Police Federation of Australia initiative on community partnerships
to prevent crime has received the highest possible accolade. The Federal
Government has commandeered the scheme and funded it to the tune of
$20 million in this year’s budget.
The Howard Government move commits $20 million over four years to
establish a new national community crime prevention programme, the
centrepiece of which is a national community grants scheme to support
“innovative crime prevention projects”.
It is proposed that the programme be available only to organizations
which are:
- Not for profit.
- Incorporated.
- Community based.
- Local government associations or agencies.
Applications would be through the Minister for Justice and Customs,
and classified under three streams:
- Community Safety (grants of up to $150,000).
- Indigenous Community Safety (grants of up to $150,000).
- Community Partnership (grants of up to $500,000 to support promising,
innovative and collaborative community safety and crime-prevention
demonstration projects in high-need areas).
Former AFP and NT commissioner, Mick Palmer, is to be an “ambassador”
for the programme, which he is to promote among community groups.
The Opposition supports the programme but claims the Government
adopted it from the Labor Party’s Community Safety Zone proposal.
In reality, both parties have lifted it from the PFA’s submissions
to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs Inquiry into Crime in the Community: Victims,
Offenders and Fear of Crime, and the Standing Committee on Economics,
Finance and Public Administration’s Inquiry into Local Government
and Cost Shifting.
The PFA made submissions to both in 2002, and asserted that the Federal
Government could no longer contend that crime in Australian communities
was a State/Territory issue for which it (the Federal Government)
bore no responsibility.
Local police, the PFA suggested, knew the needs of their particular
communities but often found it difficult – through lack of funds –
to develop programmes. The PFA proposed that the Federal Government
fund “creative and innovative projects”, which could operate in conjunction
with local policing initiatives.
The PFA submission went on to suggest the establishment of an “Innovations
Grant Programme” for projects aimed at local crime reduction, and
identified that local police should have a co-ordination role.
The submission was, therefore, about formulating a national policy
on supplementing and assisting local policing initiatives through
federal government funding.
While the $20 million over four years is only a small amount compared
to the $20 billion cost of recurrent expenditure of all police jurisdictions
over the same period, it is a start. It also illustrates that both
parties recognize that the Federal Government does have a responsibility
in respect of local law and order.
The PFA will continue to lobby both sides of politics to ensure the
provision of adequate federal funds to supplement local law and order,
and crime prevention initiatives.
