Safety - How It Can Be Achieved Through Collaboration
Commissioner Mick Keelty APM
Friday 28 November 2003
2003 Institute of Public Administration Australia National Conference
Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre
Good morning. I appreciate being given the opportunity to speak at this conference and contribute to discussions on the future, as we explore the theme "A 2020 VISION - Government for the Future."
When people turn their minds to how they would prefer our society to look in 2020, I suspect they hope for a safe and civil community - at local, national and international levels.
People would probably imagine a society where they can move safely and freely throughout their neighbourhoods and cities and travel the world without the threat of violence. They might also imagine a stable economic environment. As former US president Bill Clinton noted during his address to the Australian Parliament in 1996, there is a clear nexus between a secure community and the stability of a nation's economy.
At the other end of the spectrum, some people may imagine a state with intrusive technological capabilities, removing many individual freedoms and civil liberties. Or they may imagine a world of chaos and disorder, with a total breakdown in the rule of law - themes often explored in popular movies such as Minority Report and Bladerunner.
Despite these very different scenarios, law enforcement is at the core of most people's vision of the future. While law enforcement will always be about the "here and now", the reality is that the AFP is not only a "doing" or policy implementation organisation. It is also an integral part of policy development processes. As a contributor to policy development, the AFP strives to ensure society's values are preserved and that as a nation, we remain prepared for a variety of future scenarios.
This demands that the AFP remain future-oriented and fully considers the implications of national and international developments in terms of Australia's future. One of the reasons we are here today - talking about government in 2020 - is our obligation to provide stewardship - not only for our families and organisations but also for our community and even to play a stewardship role on the world stage.
The nature of the conference theme leads us to consider stewardship in the future.
The theme of my presentation today is "collaboration". I will consider the role law enforcement and associated agencies are now playing in delivering a safe and secure society. I will also consider where these agencies might be placed in the year 2020.
I'm sure you will all agree that before we can begin to consider what the future holds, we must explore the past and consider some relevant theories that will give context to our examination of the future.
To do this I will:
- Firstly, touch on historical concepts of policing.
- Then I will look at possible theories facing Australia and our position in world affairs.
- I will then turn to the importance of collaboration in successful law enforcement, including recent AFP experiences.
- Finally, I will consider how law enforcement might look in 2020 and how we may need to develop our views on law enforcement to assist in maintaining international order.
Segment 1: What is policing?
Let's start by looking at policing and the role it plays in society. In considering governance and collaboration from an international policing perspective, I am reminded of the words of the historian E H Carr. He said: "No political society, national or international, can exist unless people submit to certain rules of conduct. The problem why people should submit to such rules is the fundamental problem of political philosophy". This strikes to the heart of policing in both the domestic and international environment.
A decade ago at an international conference here in Brisbane , Sir Max Bingham, one of the original members of the National Crime Authority, noted that criminal law is the "clearest possible application of the organised power of the community" and that the police exercise this organised power as an "integral part of the administrative structure of society". Sir Max further noted that policing is a concept with variable content, which changes to meet current needs.
At the same conference Professor Ross Homel explored the theme of crime prevention, as opposed to law enforcement. He made three pertinent points:
- Firstly, the majority of people in a community do not refrain from crime because of the existence of police, but comply with the law because of values they have learnt during their upbringing or because social pressures encourage conformity.
- Secondly, a small percentage of the population will always take advantage of circumstances to commit crimes but most will remain constrained by the potential for criminal sanctions; and finally
- When law and order do breakdown - "police-like" functions are likely to be replicated by other social responses, such as vigilante groups or paramilitaries.
As long as a community shares a set of common rules and institutions, people will:
- seek structures and systems that deliver order and safety;
- They will aim for positive relationships with the organisations providing that function; and
- And they will vary the characteristics of policing to reflect the community's needs.
There are good examples of how police organisations have adapted to meet changing needs. In 1924 the duties of the Queensland Police were expanded to include some 70 extraneous functions. These included slaughter house inspectors, customs officers, mining registrars, police magistrates, inspectors of government bores - presumably the geographical type - and inspectors under the Fish and Oyster Act. Today, many of these roles are performed by other agencies and the key focus for police is to prevent crime.
Interestingly, Queensland also provided the circumstances that ultimately led to the formation of the AFP. As some of you are no doubt aware, Prime Minister Billy Hughes had eggs hurled at him during a railside address in Warwick in 1917. Hughes demanded that the person responsible be charged for creating a disturbance and was outraged when a Queensland Police Sergeant refused to take action as he had no Commonwealth jurisdiction. As one wit commented: "From the Warwick egg was hatched the Commonwealth Police Force!"
The challenge for all police organisations, Commonwealth or State, is to keep abreast of emerging trends to ensure they evolve in line with community expectations. In the AFP we use regular scenario analysis and environmental scans.
Segment 2: What might 2020 look like?
Let's now turn our attention to 2020 and consider what our society might look like.
There is a natural human tendency to assume the future will be much like the present. But we only have to turn back the clock 17 years to 1986 to dispel the idea that 2020 will mirror 2003. For example, 1986:
- Was the last time that Australia lost a test cricket series to England;
- There was no internet - and therefore less of a focus for the AFP on technology based crime;
- The global order had been firmly set for 40 years by the USSR and United States. In 1986 no-one expected that within three years the prevailing world order would change so dramatically.
This last example possibly points to the most influential characteristic of our potential future - the international context.
While nobody really knows what the world will look like in 2020, we can consider some possible theories.
Hedley Bull's classic analysis of international relations, The Anarchical Society, is particularly pertinent from a law enforcement perspective. It focuses on a community of states - or an international society - which exists when a group of states, "conscious of certain common interests and values" form a society. In this society they are bound by a common set of rules in their relations and they share in the working of common institutions. Clearly, collaboration is a strong characteristic of this arrangement.
According to Bull, the future of international affairs will either continue to consist of interacting nation states - in a unipolar, bipolar or multipolar arrangement - or be replaced by utterly different structures. Bull considers a number of alternatives, including a form of global governance or state, or a "new medievalism". Policing under such scenarios could be radically different to the prevailing paradigm.
The possibility Bull poses of a solidarity of states could take the form of a federal system under which an empowered United Nations - or some other structure - provides a true world government. Indeed, in the last few days here in Brisbane, I have been discussing with my South Pacific counterparts the benefits of combining individual deployments as a regional force, when deploying internationally.
A radical theory used by those painting a picture of an authoritarian state - is the idea of a single, global state where civil liberties are few and security police are ever present.
New medievalism, as imagined by Bull, entails the disintegration of the states-system to the extent that sovereignty over territory and population becomes shared with other sovereign actors. This would result in a globe of overlapping authority and multiple loyalties. This is potentially similar to the Hanseatic League of the 14th and 15th centuries. While acknowledging the possibility of this future, Bull does not find it particularly attractive - suggesting it would "contain more ubiquitous and continuous violence and insecurity" than the modern system.
In each of the possible forms of international order posed by Bull, there are fundamental challenges for the direction of policing. I will return briefly to this issue at the end of my presentation.
But for the moment I will look at some of the international challenges that may lie ahead. These challenges will help shape not only the new world order, but will also impact on law enforcement and its relevance in the community.
- Firstly - the future of globalisation. Due to its reliance on trade, Australia has arguably been a net beneficiary of globalisation. How will world events impact on this over time? Is globalisation a self sustaining and irreversible process? Will terrorism substantially slow the process down? And can the uneven distribution of the benefits of globalisation be adjusted?
- What of Australia and Asia? What will our differing demographic structures mean for our relationship?
- What of the Australia/US alliance?
- How will this fit with the rise of China?
- What would a clash over Taiwan mean for Australia's relationships with China and the US?
- What of the US's New Grand Strategy and how will the War on Terrorism progress?
Given the importance of this last issue, it is worth further consideration. Recent history suggests that terrorism is deeply embedded in modern culture. Some academics describe four waves of terrorism over the past 150 years:
- the Anarchical terrorist wave, from the 1880s to the 1920s;
- the Anti-Colonialism wave, from the 1920s to the 1960s;
- the New Left wave, from the 1960s to the 1980s;
- to the current religious extremism wave which emerged in the 1970s.
Given the structural factors at work behind radical Islamic terrorism and the complexities behind influencing these beliefs, it would seem the threat of Islamic terrorism is likely to be present for some years to come. This threat and responses to it, will continue to reshape the global, regional and national features of the security landscape and, therefore, the nature of law enforcement.
Now let us consider how previous terrorism waves have affected law enforcement. During the Anarchist wave, there was a trend toward the assassination of prominent figures, including United States President William McKinley in 1901. This lead to his successor, Theodore Roosevelt, calling for a worldwide crusade to exterminate terrorism and a radical transformation of police forces in the United Kingdom, Russia and the United States.
Some of the challenges Australia might face are connected to global or regional hotspots. Religious, ethnic, technological, economic and political factors, will continue to generate hotspots. Some of these will fall into the domain of law enforcement as they provide opportunities for significant criminal activities.
Demographics, the environment and health issues also need to be considered when thinking about the future. Changing trends in these areas, even relatively small changes, can have a significant impact on stability, and therefore implications for law and order. For instance, new and re-emerging infectious diseases will continue to pose a rising international health threat and could exacerbate social and political instability. Authoritative studies point to the presence in the region of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, malaria, and cholera and a likely dramatic increase in infectious disease deaths, largely driven by the spread of HIV/AIDS.
By 2010 the region could surpass Africa in the number of HIV infections which could lead to substantial shifts in government priorities and resource allocations.
In developing countries - 95 per cent of population growth is forecast in urban areas. In our own region the urban population has doubled over the last 20 years, with the number of mega cities increasing from three to twelve. This trend, reflected around the world, has the potential to generate a raft of challenges for law enforcement.
Segment 3: The AFP and safety, communities and collaboration
I would like to turn now to the AFP's role in the community and its collaborative experience in addressing some of the recent law enforcement hotspots.
Since its establishment in 1979, the functions of the AFP, have expanded significantly. Our growth reflects Bingham's observation that policing is a concept with variable content, and that it changes to meet community needs.
The AFP has given some thought to critical uncertainties capable of shaping its future and two key elements have emerged.
The first relates to the way in which government - as a result of community expectations - defines the role of law enforcement. A narrow definition might see the AFP pursuing a single function, such as community policing, or as an investigative agency of the Commonwealth. However, a broad definition could take us well beyond our already expansive set of functions.
The second element is about the market for law enforcement services and the possibility of having inter-organisational cooperation, collaboration and strategic partnerships to meet the demands of a competitive environment. This is a noticeable trend in the private sector, where the strategy is also used to spread risk.
If we look at AFP functions over time plotted onto a matrix - as you will see on the screen behind me - we can see the extent of change that has taken place within the organisation. Some of these events include:
- the removal of the Australian Protective Services (APS) in1984;
- the removal of airport security duties in 1990 and the early stages of New Public Management which drove contestability around the provision of services;
- The expansion of peacekeeping roles in 1999 - as we assisted in bringing order to East Timor;
- The policy responses to the September 11 attacks which included the return of the APS and a broadened AFP counter terrorism role;
- The policy responses post the Bali atrocities in October 2002; and finally
- Our recent involvement in the Commonwealth's regional assistance response to the situation in the Solomon Islands.
This level of change - over a relatively short period of time - indicates that the future could look markedly different to the present.
At the moment the AFP's role is broader than it has ever been - ranging from community policing, to guarding and protection services, peace keeping and complex investigations.
The focus for the AFP is countering transnational crime, such as drug trafficking, people smuggling, money laundering, electronic crime and, more recently, combating sexual servitude and terrorism.
The emergence of counter terrorism as a principal AFP function, typifies the trend towards "securitisation". The AFP is increasingly dealing with matters considered by Government to impact directly on Australia's national security.
This is a noteworthy change, especially when we look back over the past decade where there was a clearer distinction of roles between law enforcement and security agencies.
The emergence of terrorism and the growth of other types of transnational crime, have led to a more holistic approach by government agencies in relation to combating crime and security threats.
As a consequence of this, we have seen partnerships form between international and national agencies, which would not have existed previously. Long-standing relationships have also taken on a new perspective. Internally, one of the biggest challenges facing the AFP is redefining itself to deal with a broad counter terrorism function.
A second, and most important trend, has been the growing importance of collaboration in policing. In today's borderless society, cooperation is occurring on an international front, as well as between all levels of government, and community within the nation. Without cooperation and collaboration, the road for all of us becomes very hard indeed.
To demonstrate just how powerful collaboration can be as a crime fighting tool, I will now turn to some specific examples of local, national and international collaboration involving the AFP.
The Commonwealth, States and Territories Leaders' Summit of April 2002 - which was held in response to September 11 - represented a new era in establishing effective cooperation between jurisdictions.
A key Summit agreement was the need for a new national framework to meet the challenges of combating not only terrorism, but other multi-jurisdictional crimes. This new framework was built on the National Anti Terrorist Plan (NATP), which had been tested and refined for the 2000 Sydney Olympics and the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in 2002.
CHOGM was particularly notable as it was one of the first substantial gatherings of heads of government after September 11 and was regarded as highly successful without any major security incidents. Both the Olympics and CHOGM are sound examples of collaboration in the development and the implementation of previous counter terrorism policy.
Another set of Summit initiatives aimed to build a whole of government approach at the Commonwealth level, as well as strengthen relationships and arrangements between jurisdictions to deal with emerging issues.
For example, aviation security was a priority area following September 11 and the Summit agreed to introduce Air Security Officers on domestic flights as a new method to protect the community from terrorism. It is intended that this program be extended to international flights.
Another collaborative initiative was the creation of Joint Counter Terrorism Investigation Teams, comprising AFP officers and their State and Territory counterparts. These teams provide a cooperative national investigative response to security threats and will form the nucleus of any joint State/Commonwealth task force should a terrorist act occur on Australian soil.
While not a Summit initiative, another important Federal/State collaborative effort is the Australian High Tech Crime Centre. This was launched in July and is hosted by the AFP. The Centre is targeting crime involving information technology and communications, and in particular, Internet crime. It is jointly funded and staffed by State and Federal police, while its management Board comprises the Commissioners of all Australian police services. The New Zealand Police Commissioner has observer status.
Following September 11 the Australian government introduced a new suite of terrorism-related legislation. This has provided law enforcement with a strong base on which to attack terrorism both in Australia and overseas.
Importantly, the extra territorial application of many of these new offences means the AFP has the ability to counter terrorism overseas in partnership with our law enforcement colleagues.
This suite of terrorism-related legislation is complemented by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. This allows civil action to be taken in relation to the proceeds of crime. In the case of terrorism, police can confiscate money or property used in, or intended to be used in terrorism offences. The first application of this new legislation occurred within three weeks of its implementation. Since then the AFP has restrained many millions of dollars using both the civil and criminal regimes in the legislation.
As a closing point on legislation, policy-makers, ourselves included, have to be responsive and forward thinking about emerging crimes.
As indicated earlier, the AFP's international involvement has a number of substantial dimensions and we need look no further than the tragedy of Bali to observe the critical importance and multiple dimensions of the collaborative approach.
At the height of the investigation more than 120 Australian law enforcement personnel, from the AFP and every state and territory police force, were working alongside Indonesian police and experts from around the world.
This collaboration was unprecedented and came about as a result of an agreement I signed with the head of the Indonesian National Police, General Da'i Bachtiar, less than a week after the bombing occurred. Four months prior, the AFP and INP had signed a memorandum of understanding, which provided a formal and effective framework for action during times of crisis.
The scale of the Bali bombing investigation is evident by the following statistics:
- in the days after the bombings more than 7300 Australians returned home and their details were collected at ports of entry into Australia;
- more than 600 witness statements were taken; and
- the forensics team examined more than 46 crime scenes and collected 2900 exhibits.
Another example of national cooperation was the groundbreaking legislation that allowed state and territory police to collect samples from relatives and friends of the victims and share this information through a national DNA database.
The unique relationship established during the Bali bombing investigation set the framework for future collaboration. When AFP members were requested to attend the scene of the Marriott bombing in Jakarta - 10 months after the Bali explosions - a close working relationship had already been established. This environment of mutual trust and understanding allowed Australian and Indonesian teams to immediately achieve results.
There are many other examples of international collaboration in the counter-terrorism area. Earlier this year, the AFP provided assistance to authorities in Saudi Arabia investigating a bombing in Riyadh. When elements of the Philippines military staged a siege in an apartment block in Manila, we had officers on the ground who were able to provide timely information to our Incident Coordination Centre in Canberra. Liaison with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade ensured the safe evacuation of Australian citizens to a more secure location.
And to illustrate that this collaboration remains ongoing, in the last few days, the AFP has deployed a small team of technical experts to Turkey to assist in the investigation of the explosion at Istanbul.
Central to the AFP's ability to counter transnational crime is its network of international offices. This network facilitates the exchange of information, builds relations and enhances cooperation. The AFP has been working overseas for nearly three decades and was the first western police agency to establish posts in a number of overseas countries, including China and Vietnam.
Following September 11, the AFP's international network was expanded and now involves 31 posts in 26 countries, including specific counter-terrorism positions.
The international network also provides the framework to deliver the AFP's Law Enforcement Cooperation Program (LECP). Established in 1998, this program strengthens relations between regional law enforcement agencies, through personal and institutional linkages, training and the provision of equipment.
In a clear sign of the progress being made in international collaboration, the AFP was invited this year to attend the annual ASEAN Chiefs of Police Conference in Manila. This conference, usually restricted to Asian police services, aims to foster cooperation and understanding among national police agencies in the region and it was a particular privilege to be invited. The challenge for me is to maintain relationships with Asian police services to ensure our continued presence at this important forum.
Some observers would no doubt be of the view that relationships exist on an international level due to the mutual benefits they deliver to participants - call it "enlightened self interest."
While this is indeed a factor, I would argue that mutual understanding and trust is the key to building relationships with overseas counterparts, particularly in Asia where there are substantial cultural differences. In this region, it is not necessarily the business that you do, but how you do the business that is important. And I believe it's the AFP's reputation as an "honest broker" that has allowed it to make considerable inroads to achieving successful collaboration.
Robust relationships at any level do not necessarily come easily, despite the fundamental purpose that law enforcement officers and agencies share. Collaborative relationships require commitment, investment of time and effort, and an eye to the broader picture and the longer term.
Experience has shown that relationships achieved in the national and international law enforcement arena produce a powerful, positive and reinforcing dynamic, which equips us well to tackle crime of any form.
In this modern era, where crimes cross national and international boundaries, it is easy to lose sight of their origins and reach. Transnational crime is a local crime somewhere, and therefore the participation of individual communities is essential to achieving crime fighting objectives.
Programs which involve local communities such as Crime Stoppers and Neighbourhood Watch, have shown that a partnership between a committed community and responsive police organisation can have a considerable impact on crime. Our experience with Australia's National Security Hot Line, established after September 11, shows that this approach can also work in the area of terrorism. The success or otherwise of these types of programs depends on our ability to effectively engage the community - building relationships outside times of crisis will enable us to deliver when a crisis occurs.
As we know, the role of law enforcement in the community is to police for the rich and the poor, the old and the young, the Christian and the Moslem, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.
It is important therefore that law enforcement builds relationships with all areas of the community to ensure an environment which supports the fight against crime.
While terrorism is at the forefront of our minds, this perspective on community leads us to the AFP's experiences in peace keeping and the importance of collaboration.
'Operation Helpem Fren', or the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands, came about as a result of a request for assistance from the Solomon Islands Government. The comprehensive package provided by Australia and other South Pacific nations is designed to restore law and order, rebuild government and economic institutions and provide an environment where the Solomon Islands people can feel secure and commerce can flourish.
The largest and most visible element of this package is the Participating Police Force. This includes 200 security and police personnel from Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Vanuatu, Kiribati, PNG, Tonga, Cook Islands and Samoa. The Participating Police Force is working with the Royal Solomon Islands Police to investigate serious crime, remove illegal weapons from the community, and dismantle militant groups and organised crime syndicates. Visiting police are also providing training and are assisting to reform the Solomon Islands Police, with the introduction of recognised professional standards.
The deployment has met with overwhelming support from the Solomon Islands community and has made significant operational gains. More than 400 arrests have been made, including powerful militant leaders and corrupt police officers. Over 3700 weapons have been collected, 670 of which were military-style weapons. Some 16 police posts have been established throughout Solomon Island provinces. Honiara and other regional centres have also reported a dramatic improvement in law and order. We expect to have a significant presence in the Solomons over the next five years, with our role changing from front line policing to one of training and capacity building.
While the AFP's involvement in the Solomon Islands is about helping a neighbour in difficulty, its engagement in East Timor, more appropriately known as Timor Leste, is helping to create a nation. The AFP's initial presence in East Timor, under UN arrangements, involved the supervision of the ballot which determined whether a new country would be formed. Currently, the AFP is in Timor Leste as one of 43 nations forming the United Nations Police presence. Significantly, from a collaboration perspective, the AFP is working alongside State and Territory police in this operation.
The objectives of United Nations Police include the provision of interim law enforcement and public security and assistance in the development of a new Timor Leste law enforcement agency.
As we know, the birth of Timor Leste was not easy, and the AFP was present in the difficult period leading up to independence. We should also not underestimate the challenges that lie ahead for Timor Leste.
The establishment of capable institutions, including law enforcement, will provide the bedrock for nation building. We have already seen the intended downsizing of UNPOL delayed. This is to ensure that Timor Leste's new law enforcement agency has the operational capability to address civil disturbances as well as internal security concerns. Achieving this will be one test of the effectiveness of this collaborative approach.
There has been a great deal of discussion recently about what has been termed the "new centrality of the South Pacific" in Australia's foreign policy. This discussion has largely been driven by the Solomon Islands response and consideration for providing police to Papua New Guinea. Hugh White, the Director of the influential Australian Strategic Policy Institute, supports this approach. Without intervention, he forecasts state failure in the Pacific, leading to violence, deprivation and transnational crime." White suggests a rethinking of our security priorities and poses the idea of "firm power" - softer than the traditional hard power of the armed forces and harder than the soft power of trade, aid and human links. He sees this new firm power delivered "through police, prison officers, judges and auditors, backed by a government willing to press reluctant political elites to accept help". This is an interesting viewpoint.
I would argue however, that it is important to recognise a clear distinction between the firm power of armed forces and the ideologies behind providing effective community policing and peacekeeping roles. It is useful to note the difference between peace making - often involving the taking of life - and peace keeping which, in essence, is about the protection of life. Traditionally, the former is a function of the armed forces, and the latter a function of law enforcement. While acknowledging that in the real world a grey area often exists between the two, the danger for law enforcement is being drawn too far into actions causing loss of life. Movement into this militaristic space can deligitimise law enforcement in the eyes of the community it is seeking to serve.
This brings me to the point of how you measure the success of collaboration. Performance can be measured in many ways and law enforcement has developed some sophisticated reporting frameworks. But, at the end of the day, the best measure of success lies in how the community views us and whether they feel they are better off as a result of our presence or actions.
Section 4: Law enforcement and 2020
Before drawing to a close, I would like to return once more to consider how the international order in 2020 might impact on policing.
Here in our uni-polar 2003, we can see a range of law enforcement approaches at work internationally. We have traditional jusrisdictionally based law enforcement organisations and arrangements; Interpol acting as a facilitator of police communication; and Europol providing a successful experiment in regional policing structures. The International Criminal Court continues to attempt to extend its jurisdiction and obligation to individuals; and the proposal to create a US-led global police force for peacekeeping operations is attracting attention as an alternative to the existing UN peace-keeping capabilities. How these might evolve is a most interesting question. But it goes far beyond the collaboration theme of my presentation today.
Moving on to Bull's notion of a global state. We might, in that world, expect to see the functions and arrangements just mentioned, being consolidated into some sort of unitary global law enforcement agency and criminal justice system. You only have to try to imagine how an organisation like this would work, to realise just how unlikely this would be. That said, unfamiliar and complicated alternatives have not constrained developments in the past.
Alternatively, under Bull's new medievalism, we would have a world with multiple geographic, administrative, and/or religious jurisdictions. All of these could be expected to form and utilise law enforcement agencies to enforce their own interests.
Section 5: Conclusion
This tour of 2020, law enforcement and the importance of collaboration has been a lengthy one, but I hope you have found it interesting and thought-provoking.
In exploring the collaborative experiences of law enforcement and the connection to 2020, I have touched on some possible futures. I would underline that they are just that - possible futures. Having explored collaboration, law enforcement and 2020, we come back to our starting point - society desires safety and security. In 2020 the institution that addresses these needs may not be termed law enforcement or policing, and may be substantially different from the current form. But I would suggest that collaboration will, in 2020, be a feature of whatever law enforcement arrangement prevails. And I would simply conclude that it is important for us, as stewards of the future, to act in ways that will allow collaboration to flourish and deliver to the community its full potential.
I can't leave you with any better example of the effectiveness of collaboration than this moving pictorial overview of the Bali bombing investigation.
Thank You.