The Australian Federal Police Association (AFPA) has called out the Department of Home Affairs’ emergency package of tracking and monitoring measures to keep tabs on former detainees released from indefinite immigration detention as unfunded, warning it could lead to service cuts unless addressed.
Still smarting over the Australian Public Service Commission’s (APSC) decision to saddle the police unions with the 11.2% pay rise rejected by other unions in bargaining, the AFPA says its cops are now being told to do more with less despite being the worst paid plod in the country.
“With its limited resources and funding arrangements, including having to give back money to cover the Government imposed efficiency dividend, what processes, activities or investigations does the Federal Government want the AFP to turn off to ensure that there are resources and funding to incorporate this detainee monitoring exercise?” AFPA president Alex Caruana said.
“The AFP already does a lot to protect Australia and its many communities, and resources and funding already limit them in the operational environment. On top of that, AFP appointees are the lowest base-paid police officers in the country, and yet they are continuously asked to do more.”
The suite of former detainee monitoring measures was rushed into place after the High Court of Australia ruled that effective indefinite detention was unlawful, thus legally requiring the release of immigration detainees deemed to have failed a good character test.
While the defective laws were put in place by the previous government, immigration minister Andrew Giles and the prime minister sustained heavy political fire from the Opposition over the handling of the matter.
But the decision to place extra controls on former detainees without additional resourcing will stretch police resources even thinner than they already are, the AFPA argues, a scenario that naturally introduces new elements of risk into policing operations.
The AFP declined to comment on the union’s criticisms.
One of the key reasons the AFPA is pursuing the Australian Public Service Commission’s wage masters is that the federal force is losing officers to better-paid jurisdictions, national security agencies or banks and corporate security functions.
Unlike APS agencies, the APSC essentially gives directions on pay rather than lodging an enterprise bargaining agreement or award with the Fair Work Commission, meaning many security agencies just have to cop what they are given, even if there are prior negotiations.
“It’s disappointing that the APSC and Federal Government have handcuffed enterprise agreement negotiations that will continue to see AFP appointees remain among the lowest-paid police officers in the country. Yet the Federal Government expects the AFP to expand their services and take on more work and responsibilities with the same resources and funding,” Caruana said.
“Policing operates on much goodwill from the workforce, and that goodwill is drying up. For too long, AFP appointees have been underpaid compared to their state and territory colleagues, and it’s time that the Federal Government come to the party and pay their premier law enforcement appointees a wage that favourably aligns with state and territory police officers.”
Low or depressed wages are also regarded by many as a counterintelligence and internal security risk, namely because if people in trusted positions have trouble making ends meet, grievance offers an exploitation opportunity to cultivate moles or to turn trusted insiders.
The biggest immediate risk is staff churn, which can often turbocharge itself if agencies struggle to backfill vacated positions, creating a culture of overwork and chronic under-resourcing.
There is also ambivalence around some of the government’s arguments that conditions like working from home help public servants save money by lessening commuting costs because such conditions are not available to police who mainly work in the field or from secure offices.
The AFPA hit out strongly against the APSC’s move to lock their members into the 11.2% increase over three years earlier this month, saying it was “appalled and utterly dismayed” by the decision and demonstrated “a complete lack of respect” for AFPA member’s.
The AFPA said the move “effectively eliminates the potential for the extensively government-promoted concept of ‘good faith bargaining’.”
READ MORE:
Australian Federal Police want humans to set boundaries for law enforcement AI
Any feedback or news tips? Here’s where to contact the relevant team.