Counter‐terrorism across the Policing Continuum

Abstract

Over the past two decades private and hybrid forms of policing have grown considerably in Australia. As a result, governments have begun to recognize the role played by non‐state police agencies and personnel in the provision of public order and safety, further extending and legitimizing non‐state policing. In addition, the private ownership of critical infrastructure and ‘communal spaces’ has led to a central role for non‐state police in the area of ‘high policing’ counter‐terrorism. In response to changes to the auspices and providers of policing, state police were beginning to explore new ways of working with private and hybrid forms of policing, with the emergence of a new type of experiment in policing partnerships, the Police–Private Security Committee (POLSEC). This paper examines these trends and implications for ongoing developments in Australian policing.

Keywords:

• Policing
• Private Policing
• Security
• Communal Spaces

Notes

[1] A revised National Counter‐Terrorism Plan was introduced in 2005 with some minor changes, adding the words ‘or seriously’ to disrupting trade etc. to the definition of terrorism.

[2] This did indeed occur subsequently when the Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory, John Stanhope, opposed key elements of the new draft legislation in September 2005 (cf. Stanhope, 2005) and subsequently made public draft legislation that other premiers, chief ministers, and the Prime Minister had agreed would remain confidential. Stanhope argued in the ACT Legislative Assembly that he did not make such an undertaking, and believed it to be irresponsible to hand such authority to the Commonwealth without broader public consultation (ACT Legislative Assembly, Hansard, 18 October 2005, pp. 3744–3747). Stanhope attracted severe criticism for his stance. For instance, the Prime Minister John Howard argued that Mr Stanhope was part of the ‘distortion’ and ‘exaggeration’ of the content of the legislation; that he was ‘not about informing the public’ but rather ‘balancing his own political position’ by ‘trying to pretend that in some way he [was] exposing draconian laws’ when, according to the Prime Minister, the laws were ‘unusual but we live in unusual circumstances’ (Howard, 2005).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Darren Palmer

Darren Palmer is Senior Lecturer at Deakin University, Victoria, Australia. His recent work includes a comparative study of techniques for governing police in Queensland and Victoria, and a co‐authored research report on civil actions against Australian police. He is now researching police pursuits, police corruption, and different forms of policing.

Chad Whelan

Chad Whelan has worked in the commercial security sector for several years. He currently teaches in criminology at Deakin University and is completing a PhD on the impact of terrorism on the organization of counter‐terrorism in Australia.