Feedback closes on Sunday 29 March 2026
Details of the proposed law are explained in an earlier TWiSK report
Community safety is both a local and statewide concern, encompassing domestic violence, knife crime, car theft, rising crime rates and the presence of local encampments.
It has become impossible to ignore these concerns; they appear in crime statistics, dominate news cycles, flood social media feeds and most people know someone who has been affected personally. The issue has also become divisive, with increasingly polarised opinions about how best to respond.
Emotions are running high and fear often blurs the line between fact and fiction. TWiSK aims to provide reliable information that supports a reasonable discussion.
Not a new issue
Rough‑sleeping encampments, and the community concern that surrounds them, have long been part of St Kilda life. Efforts to address the issue have generally resulted in activity shifting to another location, only for the cycle to repeat.
Accross the decades, welfare agencies, health providers, Council, police, neighbours and volunteers have all sought to connect people with better alternatives. While we will never know how many people have been helped over the decades, the goodwill has been substantial, and remarkable at times.
Attention has now shifted to questions of community safety: but whose safety is at stake—the broader community, or those who feel they have no choice but to sleep rough? What about people who fear encampments because they associate them with crime or danger? What about once thriving streets that are attracting fewer people?
There is widespread agreement that more must be done and that ignoring the issue is not an option.
How did this local law on encampments became an option?
The option of changing the local law on encampments has emerged from a longstanding concern for vulnerable people.
Port Phillip’s existing rough‑sleeping provisions include an exemption for people with complex needs. This creates a grey area in enforcement and does not guarantee the resources required to address those needs.
In the 2025 Roundtable Report on Community Safety, respected jurist Ian Gray AM wrote: “[Current] by law 42 prohibits camping on Council land or in a public place, but people who are homeless or have ‘complex needs’ are effectively exempted from that prohibition (Section 42(2), Community Amenity Local Laws 2023).”
He also noted that Victoria Police does not routinely deploy officers to relevant hotspots, stating that the current practice of providing ad hoc support “does not inspire community confidence and contributes to a perception of reduced safety.” Gray supported systematic daily joint patrols involving police and Council officers.
Local police were similarly direct. In their submission, they argued that the current local laws are inadequate in limiting or stopping encampments and that exemptions within Local Law 42 have enabled their growth and permanency.
The VicPol submission vigourously supported a tiered response prioritising intervention and assessment before enforcement. [See Police Submission in full]
Conversely, local agencies at the Round Table held overwhelmingly negative views regarding the impact of any local law changes. They expressed concern that forcing vulnerable people in the justice system could increase stress, distress and worsen housing stability and mental health.
Gray ultimately remained neutral on the proposed law change. He argued that removing exemptions would not, by itself, improve public safety or amenity, and that progress was more likely through continuing Port Phillip’s human‑rights‑based approach to housing, homelessness and mental health, combined with increased police resources for neighbourhood policing and joint patrols.
He identified police resourcing as a major barrier, noting that the local Neighbourhood Policing team is small (about 4 officers) and officers are often diverted to other duties, limiting consistent patrol capacity.
Community engagement in 2025 was ‘slighty’ opposed.
In the CEO’s Report to be tabled this Wednesday, Chris Carroll summarised the community feedback so far as follows:
‘The community engagement from May and June 2025 showed mixed views about changing Local Law powers. Survey responses were divided, with a slight majority opposing a proposed amendment that would allow designation of no encampment areas as a last resort option to assist in resolving anti-social behaviours.
‘Service providers did not support Local Law changes and instead advocated for improvements to housing, mental health, alcohol and other drug and outreach services.
‘Police supported a tiered approach that prioritises social and therapeutic support before enforcement.’
He said Council considered the options and chose to progress a new clause to allow authorised officers to remove encampment equipment across the municipality when behaviours impact safety or amenity.
In December 2025 councillors voted to proceed to statutory consultation with a clear 6–3 majority. The vote was:
FOR: Crs Makin, Jay, Thomann, Mears, Hardy and Cunsolo
AGAINST: Crs Crawford, Buckingham and Halliday.
The engagement will conclude on 29 March 2026 with findings being presented to Council for decision in May 2026.
Dynamic debate with political and legal implications
This council and community discussion is happening in the shadow of a recent Queensland court decision emphasising the human rights of rough sleepers while also upholding Moreton Bay Councils’ ability to remove encampments. [See TWiSK report]
It is also unfolding in the build‑up to the Victorian State election, where community safety, laws and police resourcing are set to be major topics. Many voters will be asking tough questions about police resourcing, community agency support and social housing.
TWiSK presents different perspectives
TWiSK sought a variety of perspectives – they are summaried here and presented in full below.
Campbell Spence, President of the Residents of Port Phillip, stated his support for the proposed amendments, arguing that antisocial behaviours arising from encampments negatively affect community safety, amenity and local businesses. He noted that areas without encampments, such as Ormond Road in Elwood and Bridport Street in Albert Park, are thriving. He cited legal advice indicating that the proposed amendments do not contravene human rights and distinguished them from the Moreton Bay laws ruled unlawful in Queensland. He emphasised that the amendment allows authorised officers to remove equipment only when behaviours impact community safety or cause residents to feel unsafe.
A St Kilda resident, Claire, argued that “doing nothing is not an option,” citing delays in implementing changes and strong police and community support. She highlighted that 2,357 residents signed the Safer Streets petition and that amendments would allow officers to act when encampments create safety or amenity risks. She also described Council’s “Port Phillip Zero” initiative, which provides coordinated support for people sleeping rough.
On the other hand, Sacred Heart CEO Hang Vo argued that the amendment “goes in the wrong direction,” saying no one believes homelessness is solved by taking survival items from people sleeping rough. She stated that the measure would duplicate existing powers, provoke distress and divert resources away from strategies that work, such as storage, community spaces and outreach.
Mel Dye of Southside Justice highlighted that the Queensland Supreme Court decision reinforces that every person’s human rights matter and that Council powers are not unlimited. While acknowledging Port Phillip’s non‑punitive intentions, she argued that enforcement mechanisms allowing confiscation of essential belongings cannot be supported.
Feedback closes on Sunday 29 March 2026
Statements in full
Cambell Spence, Residents of Port Phillip (RoPP) President.
‘I support the proposed amendments to local laws because increasing antisocial behaviours arising from encampments are adversely impacting community safety, amenity and businesses on our once iconic retail and dining precinct. Where there is an absence of encampments in Ormond Road Elwood and Bridport Street in Albert Park are thriving.
‘Council has legal advice that the proposed encampment amendment laws do not contravene human rights. Furthermore, the proposed encampment laws are different to the Morton Bay laws that the Queensland Supreme Court have ruled violate human rights law because the Port Phillip amendment does not give local laws officers the authority to move people on. Under the proposed amendment Authorised officers can only remove camping equipment when behaviours impact on community safety or cause residents to feel unsafe.’
Doing nothing is not an option says Claire (St Kilda resident)*
‘Your urgent action is required to finalise changes to Local Laws to address abusive and antisocial behaviours arising from street encampments that threaten community safety and deter customers from cafes, restaurants and retail businesses.
‘Residents are frustrated by ongoing delays in implementing changes to the Local Laws since they were voted up by Councillors 12 months ago.
‘The Victorian Police support the motion and have advised that street encampments will only get worse unless the local laws are changed. Residents strongly supported the motion with 2,357 people who live in Port Phillip signing the Safer Streets petition.
‘Port Phillip Council is proposing changes to its Local Laws to help manage encampments that are affecting community safety or amenity. The change would give authorised officers powers to respond when camps are creating risks to community safety or significant amenity impacts in public spaces.
Authorised officers would be able to:
Ask someone to remove encampment equipment
Remove the equipment if the person does not comply
Impound the equipment when needed
Residents have told Council they want more effective Local Laws to respond to camps that are causing safety or amenity issues. The amendment aims to:
Address threatening and antisocial behaviours where camps are creating risks
Support community wellbeing
Maintain a welfare‑first approach for people experiencing homelessness.
Council’s “Port Phillip Zero” program works with local health and welfare partners to:
Help people move into safe, long‑term housing
Provide mental health, alcohol and drug support
Maintain a “By Name List” to ensure people sleeping rough are known and supported.
‘The amendment does not introduce fines. Enforcement focuses only on removing or impounding equipment when necessary.
‘Victoria Police support the proposed amendments and are working with Council on an Operating Protocol. This will outline how both organisations work together when responding to issues covered by the Local Law.
‘110,000 people living in Port Phillip have a human right to be safe, but our safety and amenity is put at risk by fewer than 100 rough sleepers in encampments that have caused the decline of the once iconic and thriving retail and dining precincts in St Kilda and other suburbs is evident. Elwood and Albert Park have no encampments and the streets are thriving.
‘Doing nothing is not an option.’ (*Source)
Hang Vo, CEO Sacred Heart Mission
The proposed local law amendment goes in the wrong direction says Sacred Heart CEO Hang Vo.
‘No one seriously believes the solution to homelessness is to take survival items away from people who are homeless. But that’s the measure currently being discussed by Council.
‘Some councillors want local laws to more specifically penalise people who are sleeping rough.
‘They want council officers to confiscate people’s blankets, sleeping bags and anything else that might be considered ‘encampment equipment’. The aim is to force people sleeping rough to move on.
‘This amendment is pointless cruelty. It duplicates powers Council already has, just to single out people sleeping rough.
‘It does nothing to reduce homelessness or support people who experience it. It will provoke hurt and anger and desperation, making our community less safe. It leaves police and community services to deal with the fallout.’
‘Those pushing for this amendment are saying it’s for ‘community safety’. But we know – from working every day with people experiencing homelessness and trauma – that it will cause aggression and distrust to spike, not decrease.
‘They’d like us to believe the alternative is to ‘do nothing’. It’s not. The alternative is to do more of what’s already working.
‘Council has just endorsed an excellent Homelessness and Affordable Housing Strategy with practical solutions: storage for people’s possessions, community spaces where people can get meals and showers, outreach to connect people on the street with services that can help them, and a shared commitment to finding safe housing for people who need it most. This is what truly leads to community safety.
‘But the amendment proposed goes in the opposite direction, diverting resources from solutions that actually work. As a community, we’re better than that.
‘Please tell Council how we really feel about this amendment – so they can make a better choice.’
Every person’s human rights matter says Mel Dye, Southside Justice
‘The Queensland Supreme Court’s decision makes clear that every person’s human rights matter, and that Council powers are not unlimited, especially when used to move on people who are sleeping rough and have nowhere else to go.
‘While we acknowledge that the City of Port Phillip has sought to prioritise non‑punitive and supportive approaches through its local law and related policies, we cannot support the inclusion of an enforcement mechanism that allows the confiscation of essential belongings from people who lack safe and secure housing.
More detail here: Last Chance to Say ‘No’ to Local Law Amendment – Southside Justice’
