With all the commentary that has occurred in the past week, I felt it was important that I share my thoughts on the Community Safety motion that I voted for last week.

What this motion is fundamentally about is finding a balanced, humane, and practical approach to managing rough sleeping in our city.

The key outcomes of the motion adopted last week are:

• A welfare-first approach to managing rough sleeping
• Increased engagement with homelessness outreach services before any enforcement action
• New powers for authorised officers to manage unsafe or entrenched encampments on Council land
• Stronger coordination between Council, Victoria Police, support agencies, and health services with the establishment of a 3-tier protocol
• Continued backing for the Port Phillip Zero initiative aimed at reducing rough sleeping
• Ongoing advocacy for long-term affordable and social housing solutions.

To be absolutely clear: any removal or confiscation of belongings would only occur as a genuine last resort, after extensive welfare engagement and after all other options have been exhausted.

I would also like to repeat that Council was never going to issues fines to anyone. Anyone who is suggesting this is either misinformed, uninformed or even lying.

I have been a Councillor for nearly ten years, and the council meeting last Wednesday night is one I will certainly remember.

It reminded me of my first term on Council, when we made the difficult decision to build the childcare centre in Port Melbourne. To do so, we had to demolish the old Lady Foster Kindergarten – a building deeply loved by the community but no longer fit for purpose. I still remember the young kiddies in the chamber that night. Three of them were crawling at my feet as we prepared to vote. It was one of the hardest moments I have faced as a councillor.

In the end, I voted in favour because I believed the new centre would ultimately deliver a better outcome for future generations – even if it did not feel that way at the time. And history showed that it did.

Fast forward to today, and once again we have faced a difficult and emotional decision.

After more than 18 months of discussion, petitions, surveys, motions, reports, and at times deeply polarised public debate, Council was required to make a decision about limited but important amendments to our local laws relating to community safety and amenity.

It was not easy listening to passionate arguments from all sides.

The proposed changes provide Council with an additional tool – but only as a last resort. The powers would only come into effect after all welfare pathways, outreach engagement, housing options, and a structured protocol involving police, compliance officers, and health services have been exhausted.

In extreme cases, they may allow the temporary confiscation of belongings where behaviour is causing serious and ongoing disruption to the safety and wellbeing of residents and the broader community.

I cannot forget the seven weeks of distress experienced by residents of Jackson Street between September and November 2024. Hearing residents speak in the chamber – after weeks without sleep, fearful for their children, and feeling unsafe in their own neighbourhood –  was deeply confronting.

Those voices matter too.

On Wednesday night, I spoke about the importance of listening not only to my own conscience and my heart, but also to the many residents, traders, Aboriginal elders, legal experts, housing advocates, and community members who shared their perspectives with me throughout this process.

Some asked for confidentiality, which I respect. But I can say honestly that many thoughtful and informed people  – including some who work closely with vulnerable communities – believed Council ultimately reached a balanced and proportionate position.

This issue is deeply complex.

During this process, one respected Aboriginal elder spoke candidly with me about the realities of addiction, trauma, and long-term disengagement from support systems that affect some people sleeping rough. And the fact that several people who are homeless elect to be that way to use their money for drugs and alcohol. The conversation reminded me that homelessness is not a single issue with a single solution. Housing is critical, but so too are mental health support, addiction services, community safety, and sustained welfare engagement.

The elder did not believe these changes alone would solve the problem – and neither do I.

But I do believe Council has a responsibility to act where serious harm is occurring, while continuing to prioritise compassion and support.

Importantly, these amendments are only one part of a broader response. The process has strengthened coordination between Council, Victoria Police, housing providers, outreach teams, and welfare agencies. That collaboration is something we should be proud of.

I have heard many people ask whether such small changes are worth making at all.

That is a fair question.

But leadership is often about confronting difficult realities and trying to find workable compromises – not idealistic absolutes.

I also believe we must consider this issue carefully through a legal prism.

Section 7 of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities makes clear that where rights are limited, those limitations must be reasonable, justified, and proportionate.

Section 12 protects freedom of movement and the freedom to choose where to live. But rights must also be balanced against the rights of others to safety, amenity, and peaceful enjoyment of shared public spaces.

The key question therefore is not whether these changes are universally popular – they are not. The question is whether they are proportionate and necessary in the circumstances we are facing.

After long reflection, I believe they are.

This has been a very long process, and many people in the community are now experiencing consultation fatigue. Residents have attended meetings, signed petitions, completed surveys, written submissions, and participated in extensive debate. At some point, leadership requires making a decision.

That does not mean everyone will agree with it.

But I believe Council approached this carefully, thoughtfully, and responsibly.

This is not an idealistic leap. It is a structured and measured transition, supported by welfare safeguards, agency coordination, and clear operational protocols.

Hopefully, these powers will rarely – if ever – need to be used.

I would also like to acknowledge the great work that our bylaws officers are doing every day in often difficult circumstances.

But governing responsibly also means recognising when the status quo is no longer sufficient.

A balanced solution is not about choosing one side over another. It is about acknowledging competing rights, competing needs, and the shared responsibility we have to govern for the whole community.

In the end, I believe Council acted in a fair, balanced, pragmatic, and compassionate way.