Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This week the Prime Minister released a further piece of the government’s national security reform agenda, the counterterrorism white paper. The protection of Australia and Australians’ interests is and will remain the first priority of this government. The Prime Minister made it very clear in his national security statement back in December 2008, where he outlined strategies for a whole range of national security challenges that we face.

We know that the threat to Australia and our way of life is real and, disturbingly, it is not reducing. It is important that we remember that this alarming advice comes directly from the government’s security and intelligence agencies. It is for this reason that we must remain committed to the action that will best combat terrorism, and I welcome the release of the white paper. It should be recalled that, when the Prime Minister delivered the white paper earlier this week, he said:

No government can guarantee that Australia will be free from the threat of terrorism, but the government can guarantee that we will take all necessary and practical measures to combat the threat of terrorism.

With the emerging threat of home-grown terrorism, it is more important than ever that our security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the right tools and resources to assist them to identify a terrorist and to take protective action. I have spoken many times about how, if we are going to be tough on crime, we must give our police, who protect our communities day in and day out, the necessary tools that they need to get on and do their job more effectively and make a real difference in the communities in which we live. We know that doing this does make a difference.

One thing I would note—and I suppose every other member finds this—is that our constituents do not see a difference between state, territory and local governments when it comes to issues of law enforcement and community safety issues. They want and demand the best measures of community safety that we can provide. I believe there is a need for a greater degree of acceptance at all levels of government, that there is a responsibility for local law enforcement, community safety and crime prevention strategies. This is an issue that I have continually raised in the parliament. Indeed, it is a matter that I raised in my maiden speech back in 2005.

With respect to community safety, I believe there are considerable benefits in greater federal government involvement and making direct assistance available to state and territory policing, when the ultimate benefits are to be found in better community outcomes as well as the development of best practice community policing strategies. I had the opportunity last year to visit the United States, where I engaged with various police jurisdictions that are currently responsible for advancing community policing strategies through the federally financed assistance program through the Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS.

The COPS program is run by the US State Department and is designed to bring together communities and police in a way that addresses local crime problems and challenges in many communities. However, rather than simply responding to crimes once they have occurred, community policing concentrates on preventing crime and eliminating the atmosphere of fear that it creates within targeted communities. We should remember that prevention is a critical strategy—not simply stopping crime after it has occurred but applying the strategy to prevent, disrupt and disable crime before it occurs.

Each police jurisdiction I visited that was engaged with the COPS program all praised it as one of the most successful anticrime programs within their jurisdictions. Whilst the COPS program was initially implemented in 1994 by President Clinton, with the election of the Obama administration in 2009 the US have placed a renewed importance on this program by injecting a massive $1 billion which was topped up by a further $730 million in the 2010 budget.

As a result of this program, I can report that every jurisdiction I engaged with saw genuine reductions in street and gang related crime as well as general reductions in antisocial behaviour in areas where the program was in operation. Importantly, the program enabled police to help establish better relationships with the community and, in particular, youth at risk. The one consistent message I heard loud and clear was that, whilst law enforcement in the US—as it is in Australia—is a direct responsibility of state and local policing jurisdictions, this program made a—(Time expired)