Visible Homelessness in a “Liveable City”: Municipal Responses to Homelessness in Melbourne

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12321
• Published date: 01 March 2020
• Author: Alison Young,James Petty
• Date: 01 March 2020

Visible Homelessness in a “Liveable City”:

Municipal Responses to Homelessness

in Melbourne

By James Petty* and alison young†

abstract. Despite considerable national and urban prosperity, significant

numbers of Australians are homeless. How local governments engage

with homelessness has significant implications for the homeless

population. In recent years, municipal strategies have inclined towards

the maintenance of public order at the cost of the rights of homeless

individuals. In this article, we investigate the approach to homelessness

proposed by the City of Melbourne in 2017, which centered on the

expansion of powers to remove individuals and the confiscation of

possessions, testing the council’s claims as to the impact of visible

homelessness upon local businesses and upon other users of public

spaces.

Introduction

While patterns of homelessness differ across cultural, political, and

geographic contexts, one of the most vexing aspects is its persistence

in wealthy countries. How homelessness is responded to in econom-

ically prosperous countries offers insight into barriers to its resolution

that are political rather than economic, but nonetheless intractable.

Australia has for many years grappled ineffectively with homeless-

ness, despite enviable economic prosperity, with the global financial

recession appearing to have less impact than in other highly devel-

oped Western nations.

Despite Australia’s material wealth, homelessness is a serious and

widespread social problem, experienced by as many as 1 in 200 in-

dividuals (Homelessness Australia 2016). All Australian cities host a

American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 79, No. 2 (March, 2020).

DOI: 10.1111/ajes.12321

© 2020 American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc

*Criminology, School of Social & Political Sciences, University of Melbourne, and

Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association (VAADA).

†Criminology, School of Social & Political Sciences, University of Melbourne, and Law

School, City, University of London. Email: ayoung@unimelb.edu.au

402 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology

substantial population of individuals experiencing homelessness of

varying kinds and duration (Mechkaroff et al. 2018). In addition, there

are numerous individuals enduring the kind of social or economic

precariousness identified by Standing (2014). The scale of the problem

directly contradicts assumptions about the quality of life in Australian

towns and cities. As an example, Melbourne for several years running

(2010–2017) was awarded the accolade of “World’s Most Liveable City”

by the Economist Intelligence Unit, but housing—a key element of

“liveability”—is inaccessible to many of its inhabitants. (In 2018 and

2019, Melbourne was ranked second to Vienna. For a critical view of

Melbourne’s “liveability,” see Lucas (2018b).)

Provision of affordable housing constitutes the primary solution to

homelessness (Kertesz and Johnson 2017). However, waiting lists are

long. In Victoria, it is estimated that over 82,000 people are in need

of housing. Around 90 percent of these annually are not assisted with

housing needs (Incerti 2018). As a result, most individuals experienc-

ing homelessness will endure living conditions that are temporary,

unsafe, or unstable. Many will endure periods in which they appear

visibly homeless through having to sleep rough or to seek donations

in public spaces. Chamberlain and Johnson (2016) state that about 1.4

million Australians will have to sleep rough at some point.

A persistent and complex social issue, homelessness demands

well-coordinated and long-term strategies at federal, state, and neigh-

borhood levels. Over a decade ago, a federal government plan to

end homelessness was proposed (DFHCSIA 2008). Since then, how-

ever, despite rising numbers of individuals experiencing homeless-

ness, Australia’s policy responses to homelessness have diminished

in scope, with the issue itself tending to be relegated to local govern-

ment responsibility (Jacobs 2016). Local governments have thus been

placed at the forefront of the challenges posed by homelessness. In

themselves, they have a relatively limited capacity to effectively ad-

dress the structural causes of homelessness. Nevertheless, the way in

which local governments engage with homelessness has significant

implications for local homeless populations.

In lieu of lasting solutions to the issue of homelessness, local gov-

ernments tend towards balancing their commitment to clean and