A bid by the Australian Federal Police Association to sign up sworn Australian Border Force officers could be blocked by members who fear it will threaten the foundations of the organisation.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The takeover target includes about 3000 to 4000 "sworn" Border Force staff, which would almost double the strength of the police union.
But association members – who claim the move has been made without consultation – have pushed back, holding a successful requisition for plebiscite in a bid to head off membership expansion.
The association's national council in June recommended that the Police Federation of Australia change its eligibility rules to allow members of other Commonwealth law enforcement-type agencies to join its ranks.
The intended target of the recruitment was predominantly the sworn Border Force staff, who have legislative powers similar to laws empowering police.
There are currently about 4200 AFPA members, and the proposed expansion could effectively double the size and revenue of the organisation.
But members fear an enlarged police union would dilute the service provided to existing members, result in a legal challenge by the Community and Public Sector Union, which now covers Border Force employees, and completely shift the basis upon which the AFPA exists.
The requisition gathered 278 votes within two days in September, easily eclipsing the required 208 votes, or 5 per cent, to be successful.
The vote means the association's national board must now put a plebiscite to the membership on the matter.
It is understood the wording of the plebiscite is still being decided and there is no timeframe in which the ballot must be conducted.
Meanwhile, the June recommendation will go before the full council of the police federation next week in Hobart.
The federation's rules specifically give it, and its affiliate branches, exclusive coverage of police only. Under the proposal, the rules could be altered to broaden membership eligibility.
The AFPA branch does allow associate memberships, which are open to former members and law enforcement-type employees. But associate members have no voting rights and the AFPA cannot lawfully provide them with industrial advocacy and representation.
The requisition for plebiscite, circulated among members earlier this year, called for a ballot of the full membership to decide whether the association should expand eligibility to include members of the Border Force.
"We, the members of this association, have serious concerns about this," it said.
"We believe we have a right to be consulted on what would be a complete change to the basis upon which the Australian Federal Police Association exists."
The document listed benefits for the shift, including doubling the membership base and, therefore, revenue.
"The AFPA would also have increased its influence in border-related issues that interact closely with policing issues," it said.
"An increase in membership and revenue could mean improved AFPA office staffing and resources."
But the document also foreshadowed some serious drawbacks, questioning whether the expansion would dilute the association's ability to serve existing membership.
"Would the AFPA administratively be able to cope with the increased demand associated with a different industry it has little experience in?"
A legal challenge from the Community and Public Sector Union was also anticipated.
"Were the AFPA to expand eligibility to include the ABF, the CPSU, which has existing coverage, would certainly mount a legal challenge.
"There is no doubt such a legal challenge would take a very heavy toll on the finite reserves of the AFPA, distract AFPA legal and funding resources from helping members, and be enormously costly and time-consuming."
