ASPI is examining how the Commonwealth government could bolster its contribution in the national fight against serious and organised crime. In addition to a proposal to build nation-wide capability, research for this paper has also identified ministerial arrangements as a critical enabler of the fight.<\/p>\n
The Commonwealth, States and Territories share responsibilities for organised crime, which makes an effective governance structure at the national level essential. With the federal police, all state police forces and other agencies at both levels of government having dogs in the fight, the structure has to be a pretty flexible one.<\/p>\n
The incoming Abbott Government promised to reform the current inter-jurisdictional ministerial arrangements in the legal and law enforcement space. Under the present Council of Australian Governments (COAG) framework there are two subgroups representing distinct sets of actors in the fight. The first group, which dates back to the 1960s, represents the law officers, through the Standing Council on Law and Justice (SCLJ). The other, the Standing Council on Police and Emergency Management (SCPEM), is a 1980s construct and represents the law enforcers.<\/p>\n
The incoming Government\u2019s plan is to merge these councils into a single \u2018Standing Council on Law, Crime and Community Safety\u2019. This new council would have a particular remit on cyber-safety, border security, community crime prevention and organised crime. Interestingly, counter-terrorism hasn\u2019t been named\u2014it\u2019ll probably remain managed by the existing sub-ministerial arrangements which report to COAG. This new standing council includes police commissioners and the heads of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Australian Crime Commission, and would report annually to the Prime Minister.<\/p>\n
The merger idea has merit, particularly because it seeks to reduce overlap between the existing standing councils in the areas of organised crime and cyber-crime. A merged group would see many of the key people\u2014police, legal and justice ministers\u2014around the same table. The merger might also help build Commonwealth and State cooperation in new areas such as cyber-safety and border security. Bringing the states and territories into future discussions about these challenges could help with information sharing, legal harmonisation, interoperability, and nationally-consistent leadership. It might also create a national approach to the difficult matter of unexplained wealth laws. Bringing the senior police and officials to the table also has merit too\u2014it\u2019s worked well in the intimate environment of the National Security Committee of Cabinet.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, it\u2019s worth taking the time to think through this policy. Simply creating one very large council could lead to inertia if it\u2019s not well managed\u2014more so because around 23 ministers and upwards of 20 officials will probably sit around the new table (given the scope of committee, senior officials from the Attorneys\u2019-General departments will want to be there too).\u00a0 Also, once the two previous groups\u2019 agendas are aggregated some items will be irrelevant to some ministers. This could lead to their disengagement if the meetings aren\u2019t well-crafted (for example, by splitting the agenda into separate parts for the Attorneys-General and the Police Ministers; and one where they meet together). In addition, the agendas will become so large that some \u2018tactical\u2019 concerns of the two ministerial groups mightn\u2019t be discussed until they become major, strategic issues that affect relationships. State premiers might also decline to engage on a \u2018community crime prevention\u2019 agenda if they sense this is an attempt by the Commonwealth to move into their turf, and insist it reports to COAG rather than the PM.<\/p>\n
These are important limitations for the utility of the proposed merger. Another way to achive a similar effect might be to retain the current arrangments but hold \u2018joint sittings\u2019 of the two standing councils where warranted. These joint sittings could ensure that both the law enforcement and law officer perspectives are considered, and that police commissioners and the senior legal and justice officials are working to a shared ministerial intent.<\/p>\n
The joint sittings could include other ministers with interests in combatting serious and organised crime or similar matters. Indeed, it\u2019s essential to recognise that countering these threats isn\u2019t just a matter for law enforcement: it requires enhanced approaches to community engagement, education and welfare, financial measures, anti-corruption efforts, and victim support. Engagement is also required with the business community, who often fall victim to organised crime and are in the front-line of countering it.<\/p>\n
In order to encourage collaboration between all these groups\u2014and perhaps to test the concept\u2014one early joint sitting of the two councils might be conducted as a national ministerial summit on serious and organised crime. This summit could initiate the whole-of-nation approach that\u2019s needed to counter organised crime, in a similar way to how terrorism was managed through the 2002 Leaders\u2019 Summit on counter-terrorism and multi-jurisdictional crime.\u00a0 The summit could encourage ministers from different policy areas to take actions that help to promote societal resilience against these criminals, and develop momentum for a new, multi-sectoral, strategic framework to expand upon the law enforcement-focused Organised Crime Strategic Framework<\/i> from 2009. This summit should be tasked to develop a national agenda and approach for COAG agreement.<\/p>\n