By Peter Gartside
Almost as soon as Maribyrnong City Council announced in July their intention to hire private security guards to accompany council Local Laws officers in the Footscray CBD, a group of locals organised to oppose what they say is a punitive response to poverty and homelessness.
Calling themselves Footscray Community Response (FCR) they organised a well-attended public meeting and agreed on a position statement.
Hiring Catto Security guards represents Maribyrnong council’s immediate response to ‘growing concerns about public safety and wellbeing’, though they have also signalled that more CCTV will be installed. This follows a local trader-led trial of security guard presence in April and May. Those same businesses seem to be the main supporters of the new scheme, which began on 1 September and will run for 6 months at a cost to ratepayers of $100,000.
The Footscray CBD initiative is based on the so-called ‘Melbourne model’ currently being run by the City of Melbourne with the recruitment of their own security force. Given that funding for Victoria Police has increased by 88% in the last ten years, this trend for councils to fund security services is a somewhat surprising development.
One might assume that Maribyrnong Council based their decision on some positive results but City of Melbourne’s ‘evaluation’ revealed little more than – not surprisingly – their own Local Laws officers feel safer going about their duties, and some inconclusive anecdotal evidence from the public. On the other hand, agencies who work with homeless and substance-affected people report that they have struggled to remain in touch with clients who have been displaced by the heavy security presence.
FCR points out that lack of safety largely stems from structural inequalities, so addressing safety requires attention to the creation of strong, equal and caring communities. It’s worth asking whose interests Maribyrnong council is serving: the council’s 2024 community satisfaction survey highlights some, but hardly an alarming degree of concern with ‘public safety, policing and crime’.
And it’s important to bear in mind the context: only five months ago a homeless man suffering a mental health crisis was shot dead by police in Nicholson Street Mall. The police presence had been ramped up partly under pressure from the same few local traders.
FCR activists have been monitoring the implementation of the scheme on the ground, ensuring that security guards do not overstep their limited legal powers and directly interfere with community members’ rights.
“We’re seeing patrols consisting of two security guards and two council officers, at times playing cat-and-mouse with the people who are the object of their attention, in a public space that is meant to be for everyone,” they report. “At the same time, we can see that the patrols don’t have the expertise or inclination to help people experiencing mental health crises: they are more likely to move away from such situations. Whether this achieves the council’s purpose is highly debatable.”
In any case, as FCR spokesperson Jorge Jorquera points out: “It’s not a question of how ‘nice’ the security guards are, the overall model of using by-laws against vulnerable people is wrong.”
Rather than invest in security guards, community lawyer and Footscray Community Response activist Shifrah Blustein argues: “The evidence is clear that what works is justice re-investment – targeting funding to specific community supports that address the hardship and suffering that underpins behaviour. Approaches that punish people, infringe on their rights and cause further trauma produce more of the behaviour that council is concerned about.”
Perhaps at the heart of this issue is the question of what kind of place Footscray will be, for whom, and who gets to decide. Will Footscray be a place that welcomes and cares for everyone, or a gentrified shell where those deemed not to fit are displaced – to other parts of Footscray, or further west – by security guards and punitive local laws?
The stark contrast in possible futures for Footscray was illustrated by the fact that a $2.5 million Footscray penthouse was trumpeted in the property press the very same week that council voted to make life even harder for our most vulnerable community members.
