Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Surveillance politics and local government: A national survey of federal funding for CCTV in Australia

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Security Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Closed-circuit Television (CCTV) is increasingly utilised by local councils across Australia. Local government CCTV operated in conjunction with police has brought about new challenges for democracy. This article explores survey results regarding the provision of federal funding to 18 local councils to install CCTV. The costs to councils of operating CCTV have been largely unforeseen. This article examines the contemporary political context in Australia to illuminate reasons why funding is allocated to local councils. CCTV funding is driven by populism and political pressure rather than a more objective rationale. This article suggests the need for new directions in local council CCTV evaluations, and for critical evaluations that take into account not just the financial and social costs of CCTV but also political trends. Critical evaluations have the potential to strengthen the capacity of local councils to make more empowered and informed decisions about the costs and implications of operating CCTV.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The author was an independent Advisor to Wollongong City Council during its CCTV Policy review in 2012.

  2. See Facebook group ‘Turn the CCTV Cameras Back on in the Nowra CBD’, https://www.facebook.com/TurnTheCctvCamerasBackOnInTheNowraCbd, accessed 27 July 2013.

  3. Clarence City Council did not respond to the survey questions. Instead the Council forwarded its official 2009 Evaluation. See Julian and Mason, 2009.

  4. The crime types measured by Shoalhaven Council were assault, malicious damage, breaking and entering, and street offences. The findings were that while crime incidents were very few, assault went up by more than double overall; breaking and entering went up for the final half of the trial period; malicious damage went down but finished higher in the trial period; and street offences went up overall though finished down.

  5. Notwithstanding the variable that Moreton Bay received a much higher level of funding than other councils at $1 million and installed by comparison an exponentially much larger system than all other councils. The lowest half of councils on the scale (ranging from 6 to 30 cameras) averages at 15.56 cameras per council. The highest-ranking councils on the upper half of the scale – excluding the highest variable of Moreton Bay to give a more representative indication of the sample – average at 56.625 cameras per council.

  6. A variable here is that Glenorchy’s cameras had yet to be installed, which could be the reason that the annual average internal cost for councils is skewed down.

  7. A variable to consider here is that these averages are skewed owing to the unusually large size of Moreton Bay’s system numbering 520 cameras. Caution should be exercised in reading the figures because Moreton Bay had the highest level of federal funding at $10 000 000 while all other councils received less than half of this amount. Further, the second highest amount of funding was given to Launceston Council at $555 920.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of History and Politics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia

    Robert Carr

Authors
  1. Robert Carr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Carr.

Appendix

Appendix

Survey questions sent to local councils, business chambers and private contractors operating CCTV funded by Federal Government schemes

There are six questions for this survey:

  1. a)

    The number of CCTV cameras operating in your Local Government Area (or in the area for which the organisation is responsible for managing CCTV).

  2. b)

    Crime statistics for the areas in which your CCTV system is operating, including before and since the CCTV cameras were installed. (Please state whether the figures are postcode-wide statistics or specific to the area of operation. The latter is most desirable if available. Feel free to attach statistics as part of your reply in Table form or other.)

  3. c)

    A breakdown of how Federal Government funding has been allocated as part of the CCTV programme.

  4. d)

    Direct financial costs absorbed by the Council/organisation for operational, technological and administrative aspects of the street camera programme.

  5. e)

    A brief summary of the benefits and shortcomings of the street camera programme.

  6. f)

    Briefly, would more funding from the Federal Government assist in the operation of your street camera programme? Elaborate.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carr, R. Surveillance politics and local government: A national survey of federal funding for CCTV in Australia. Secur J 29, 683–709 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2014.12

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2014.12

Keywords

Search

Navigation