Cat Barker
Australian Federal Police
The Australian Federal Police (AFP) will receive new funding
from three key measures in the 2017–18 Budget. Despite this, the AFP’s total
resourcing is estimated to be slightly lower in 2017–18 than it was in 2016–17
(by $8.3 million, or around 0.5 per cent).[1]
Further, as illustrated in Table 1, while the AFP’s budgeted expenses for
federal policing over the forward estimates are higher than they were in the
2016–17 Budget (by a total of $457.4 million over 2016–17 to 2019–20),
they are still projected to decline over time, reflecting the continued
application of the efficiency dividend.[2]
Table 1: Budgeted expenses for Outcome 1
(federal policing) in the 2016–17 and 2017–18 Budgets
| (all figures in $’000) |
2015–16
Budget
|
2016–17
Budget
|
2017–18
Budget
|
2018–19
Forward
estimate |
2019–20
Forward
estimate |
2020–21
Forward
estimate |
Outcome 1
(federal policing) |
2016–17 Budget |
1 257 381* |
1 214 943 |
1 091 204 |
1 084 620 |
1 071 690 |
‑ |
| 2017–18 Budget |
‑ |
1 255 460* |
1 239 647 |
1 227 308 |
1 197 449 |
1 173 069 |
| Change: 2016–17 to 2017–18 |
N/A |
+40 517 |
+148 443 |
+142 688 |
+125 759 |
N/A |
*Estimated actual from the portfolio budget statement for
the following year.[3]
Efficiency dividend continues to
apply
In January 2015, the Review of Australia’s
Counter-Terrorism Machinery (the Review) recommended the efficiency dividend
(ED) be removed from AFP operations.[4]
The Review outlined the pressure that the ED placed on national security
agencies and the risks associated with continued reductions to base funding. It
also noted that the Department of Defence receives an 89 per cent
exemption from the ED, and stated that the activities of national security agencies
‘are just as operational as those of Defence’.[5]
In a report tabled in March 2017, the Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security also recommended the removal of
the ED from all AFP operations (and those of the Australian Security Intelligence
Organisation and the Australian Secret Intelligence Service).[6]
The Government has not adopted the recommendation.
When the Government announced the funding for high-priority operations
(detailed below), the Prime Minister was asked why the Government continued to
provide ‘seemingly one-off funding boosts’ to the AFP and other national
security agencies instead of removing the ED, but his response did not address the
issue.[7] The ABC quoted the
Minister for Justice as stating that ‘no agency is exempt’ from the ED, but
that the additional AFP funding in the 2017–18 and previous budgets ‘more than
makes up for that’.[8]
High-priority operations
The Government will provide $321.4 million over four years
(including capital funding of $44.1 million) to increase resources and
capabilities in support of high-priority operations, including those relating
to terrorism, organised crime, violent criminal gangs, cybercrime and serious
financial crime.[9] The amount will fund
around 300 additional staff to support specialist response capabilities (such
as police negotiators and tactical response officers), covert physical and
technical capabilities, and forensics and intelligence capabilities (including
digital forensics and biometric experts).[10]
By funding the AFP for specific measures instead of removing
the ED, the Government can exert greater control over how the agency’s
resources are deployed. That said, unlike much of the additional funding the
Government has given the AFP across the 2014–15 to 2016–17 financial years, which
has been focused on countering terrorism, this measure is directed towards
building expertise relevant to a broader range of criminal activity.
The Government stated that this measure is the first step in
the AFP’s ten-year plan.[11] This appears to be a
reference to the AFP’s Strategy for Future Capability, dated
March 2017.[12] The Strategy represents
the next step in the AFP’s Future Directions project, which commenced in
March 2015, and follows on from the AFP’s move to a new structure focused
on achieving better alignment between capabilities and operational needs from July 2015.[13]
A key theme of the Strategy is the need for the AFP to position itself such
that it can respond more flexibly to a complex and dynamic operating environment,
including through building up specialist capabilities and making more effective
use of technology.
Assistance to Solomon Islands and Papua
New Guinea police forces
The other key measures both relate to assistance to overseas
police forces. The Australia-led Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands
(RAMSI), which began in 2003 and transitioned to a police-only mission from
July 2013, will conclude on 30 June 2017.[14]
The Government will provide $79.0 million over four years (including capital
funding of $1.4 million) to establish the Solomon Islands Police
Development Program. Most of the cost will be offset from Official Development
Assistance resources ($74.8 million).[15]
The Government will also provide $58.9 million over two
years for the AFP to provide assistance to the Royal Papua New Guinea
Constabulary in the lead-up to APEC meetings to be hosted in PNG in 2018.[16]
The amount will fund 73 AFP personnel already in PNG to remain there until
December 2018, with 56 personnel to have dedicated advisory roles relating
to planning for the APEC forum.[17] The cost will be partially
offset by the Official Development Assistance (ODA) fund and the AFP’s existing
resources.
Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission
The only additional funding committed to the Australian
Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) in the 2017–18 Budget is an undisclosed
amount for support relating to the 2018 Commonwealth Games.[18]
Aside from that amount, ACIC’s resourcing is estimated to be lower in 2017–18
than it was in 2016–17, by $15.3 million, or around 4.3 per cent.
ACIC’s budgeted expenses are also projected to decline over the forward
estimates, and by more than was estimated in the 2016–17 Budget for the
agencies now comprising the ACIC (the Australian Crime Commission and
CrimTrac). The difference adds up to $20.7 million over 2016–17 to 2019–20.
The decline is likely due to the impact of the ED rather than savings
associated with the merging of the two agencies.[19]
[1].
The budget figures in this brief have been taken from the following
document unless otherwise sourced: Australian Government, Portfolio
budget statements 2017–18: budget related paper no. 1.2:
Attorney-General’s Portfolio, 2017.
[2].
This statement concerns Outcome 1 (federal policing) only. Outcome 2
concerns ACT Policing.
[3].
2016–17 Budget figures taken from Australian Government, Portfolio
budget statements 2016–17: budget related paper no. 1.2:
Attorney-General’s Portfolio, 2016, p. 96.
[4].
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Review
of Australia’s counter-terrorism machinery, Australian Government,
Canberra, January 2015, pp. 36–42.
[5].
Ibid (quote taken from p. 40).
[6].
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, Review
of administration and expenditure No. 14 (2014–15), Parliament
of Australia, Canberra, February 2017, pp. 59–68.
[7].
M Turnbull (Prime Minister), Transcript
of joint doorstop interview: Australian Federal Police Majura Forensics Complex,
media release, 8 May 2017.
[8].
S Borys, ‘Federal
budget 2017: AFP to get $321m funding boost to hire extra personnel’, AM,
Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 8 May 2017.
[9].
Australian Government, Budget
measures: budget paper no. 2: 2017–18, 2017, p. 68.
[10].
M Turnbull (Prime Minister), G Brandis (Attorney-General) and
M Keenan (Minister for Justice), Boosting
national security: $321 million investment in the AFP, media release,
8 May 2017.
[11].
Ibid.
[12].
Australian Federal Police (AFP), Policing
for a safer Australia: strategy for future capability, AFP,
March 2017.
[13].
Ibid., p. 37; AFP, Annual
report 2015–16, AFP, 2016, p. 10.
[14].
Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI), ‘About RAMSI’, RAMSI website;
C Fierravanti-Wells, ‘Answer
to Question without notice: Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands’,
[Questioner: D Fawcett], Senate, Debates,
7 November 2016.
[15].
Australian Government, Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2017–18,
op. cit., p. 70.
[16].
Ibid., p. 64.
[17].
M Keenan (Minister for Justice), Extending
Australia's policing partnership with Papua New Guinea, media release,
31 January 2017.
[18].
Australian Government, Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2017–18,
op. cit., pp. 106–107.
[19].
When the merger was announced, the Minister for Justice reportedly stated
that it was ‘not about cutting the costs or the personnel of either agency’: P Riordan,
‘Australian
Crime Commission to expand into a national crime intelligence agency’, Australian
Financial Review (online edition), 5 November 2015. See also Explanatory
Memorandum, Australian Crime Commission Amendment (National Policing
Information) Bill 2015, p. 3.
All online articles accessed May 2017.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament using information available at the time of production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Enquiry Point for referral.