by CHRIS CUNNEEN
Calls to “defund the police” in the wake of the death of George Floyd are leading to immediate proposals to either dismantle police departments or cut their funding in US cities like Minneapolis, New York and Los Angeles.
There has been similar anger over Indigenous deaths in custody in Australia, but the idea of defunding the police doesn’t translate so easily to this country.
For starters, police forces here are highly centralized. There is no Melbourne Police Department or Bega Valley Shire Police Service, similar to the thousands of city and county police forces in the US. Rather, police forces here are organized and run by the federal, state and territory governments.
Nor are city and shire councils in Australia required to make funding decisions on whether to employ more police and expand the local city jail. Funding allocations are made by federal, state and territory governments.
However, far from being an empty slogan in the Australian context, the call to defund the police raises fundamental questions of principles and policy.
It forces us to reconsider our priorities: do we want more police and prisons at the cost of social housing, mental health services, domestic violence and family support programs? And could this money be reinvested in other ways to reduce crime?
Why an alternative to policing is needed
Divestment from police and prisons must be in equal measure about investment in the community. Specifically, this means investing in the types of services that are likely to ameliorate the social issues that can compromise personal and/or community safety.
For example, when people suffer a mental health crisis, family members sometimes call 000 for help. In such situations, what is required is a team of emergency response mental health professionals – not the police, who may make the situation far worse.
Toward Freedom for more