NSW’s new rapid response police unit may help some people feel safer, but it also raises difficult questions
- Written by Andrew Poe, Associate Professor of Social and Political Thought, Australian Catholic University
The New South Wales government has just announced[1] the launch of a new, permanent rapid response police unit.
Composed of about 250 officers and 28 administrative staff, the unit will be equipped with a fleet of rapid response vehicles and officers will be armed with long-arm rifles[2].
The Minns government made the announcement as part of a strategic response to violent crime in the aftermath to the Bondi Beach terror attack[3] on December 14 2025.
But does this type of policing work?
What will the unit do?
This new unit will engage in what the government describes as “intelligence-led policing” that can respond quickly to evolving threats, patrol high-risk areas and offer protection to public spaces, mass gatherings and major events.
The unit will be fully active, engaged for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and publicly visible.
The introduction of this unit is an important change in police structure and practice in NSW.
The newly constituted rapid response unit has evolved from a temporary taskforce called “Operation Shelter[4]”, which was established to address increasing social tensions following the outbreak of the Gaza War on October 7, 2023.
While the “Operation Shelter” taskforce functioned as what NSW officials described as a “reactive operation[5]”, the new unit will become a permanent, fully active police unit, with dedicated officers, training, management and budgets.
It will be proactive, attempting to prevent crime from happening before it starts.
New tactics and priorities
Rapid response teams can be distinguished from ordinary patrol policing through their structure and purpose.
There are many international precedents for such units, including in major metropolitan centres across the United States[6], the United Kingdom[7] and Europe[8].
A NSW Police Force delegation studied such units in Europe and England, travelling to investigate them in January 2026.
Previously, NSW Police deployed a strategy of “surge” operations – diverting resources for emergency engagement to disrupt criminal activity and promote public safety.
What the NSW government proposes now is a shift from what it describes as reactive policing to proactive prevention.
Police will deploy regular patrols to “high-risk areas[9]”, engaging in surveillance of potential criminal activity before it starts.
As NSW Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon said[10]:
Our priority is not only ensuring the community is safe, but that people also feel safe, while providing a deterrence to anyone who wants to do harm (while we also want to) support our frontline operational police.
But opinion on this change in policing has not been unanimous.
Power and accountability
Dramatic, traumatic events such as the Bondi Beach terror attack draw can be a source of collective anxiety. In response, lawmakers often feel compelled to react, generating policy solutions that show a rapid governmental response.
But will expanding police powers in the form of a rapid response unit prevent further terror attacks?
The research is mixed.
Place-based interventions – such as patrolling neighbourhoods already considered as a source of criminality and close monitoring of the “usual suspects” – can sometimes prevent crime in the short-term.
But research has shown proactive police engagement[11] can in fact increase, rather than decrease, major crimes.
Recent policing violence in US cities[12] – such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) action in New York, Minneapolis and Los Angeles – testifies to these dangers. These recent conflicts highlight the ways in which expanded police powers can be the source of pandemonium[13], rather than peace.
Some Australian lawmakers have criticised[14] NSW’s new rapid response unit, seeing this increase in police power as a potential source of harm, especially to legally authorised protestors.
And they are right.
Closer examination of the proposal for NSW’s rapid response unit highlights further threats to public safety, including changes to weapons use and technology.
Much current research highlights how changes in technology[15] escalate police power and police violence.
The expansion of police power cannot always be rewound, making it difficult to always hold police accountable to the law[16].
Difficult questions
The launch of a new unit raises difficult questions:
- who will engage in new police work, and what communities will these officers come from?
- how will this work be evaluated (and can communities participate in those evaluations, or will the state determine all metrics of success)?
- what, if anything, would allow for the dissolution of such a unit?
NSW Premier Minns has said[17]: “because our security challenges have changed, our policing model needs to change with them.”
Considering the current research on police power, do we need to consider and ameliorate for potential perverse outcomes?
References
- ^ announced (www.nsw.gov.au)
- ^ long-arm rifles (www.police.vic.gov.au)
- ^ Bondi Beach terror attack (edition.cnn.com)
- ^ Operation Shelter (www.abc.net.au)
- ^ reactive operation (www.nsw.gov.au)
- ^ the United States (www.nyc.gov)
- ^ United Kingdom (www.londonpolice.ca)
- ^ Europe (polizei.nrw)
- ^ high-risk areas (www.abc.net.au)
- ^ Mal Lanyon said (www.nsw.gov.au)
- ^ proactive police engagement (doi.org)
- ^ policing violence in US cities (theconversation.com)
- ^ pandemonium (doi.org)
- ^ criticised (www.theguardian.com)
- ^ changes in technology (doi.org)
- ^ accountable to the law (www.bloomsbury.com)
- ^ said (www.nsw.gov.au)
Authors: Andrew Poe, Associate Professor of Social and Political Thought, Australian Catholic University
