Responsibility Hot-Potato and the Politics of Mayor Schrinner's Announcement

“I think it is disingenuous, I think it is opportunistic and I think it’s cruel,” that’s what Gabba Ward Councillor Trina Massey told me on the lawns of GOMA.

She was responding to Lord Mayor Schrinner’s announcement that Brisbane City Council would begin penalising homeless people camping on public property.

Two mornings beforehand, on Thursday the 13th of March, the Lord Mayor gave rough sleepers 24 hours notice to leave public parks before incurring fines of up to $8000 dollars.

Snap protests were announced for the following morning, Federal Members immediately condemned the Mayor’s action on social media and it sent waves through local and national media.

How could such a substantial decision be so unexpected and what does it say about our democracy and institutions?

To try and answer these questions, I spoke with local politicians and those impacted to gain some clarity. 

When I discussed the decision making process with Councillor Massey I was shocked to hear that she was just as surprised as the public.

“This decision was made behind closed doors, there was no debate even on it…the decision at the end of the day rests with the Lord Mayor,” she told me.

Later she characterised the decision as ‘cruel’ believing that it demonstrates “a troubling side to the leader of our city,” and denied any involvement.

The Mayor has defended his stance citing public concern over anti-social behaviour, claiming "We've been taking a compassionate and flexible approach, but that is not working."  

Typically, local Government laws are passed via a majority vote on a resolution amongst councillors or specific committees.

These laws must then be published on the local government’s website accompanied by all relevant details.

Council meetings are sometimes even live streamed along with minutes documentation for full public access.

Whilst state legislation does give the Mayor special responsibilities, none of these subvert any portion of this well-established procedure, making his announcement essentially not grounded in any legal framework.  

When I questioned Councillor Trina Massey on how the council would implement this policy, particularly when police answer to State Law, she sighed, replying; “The council has no powers to move on ...I think it will be a failure.”

This sentiment was echoed by Police who told the ABC that they wouldn’t be evicting homeless people on the council’s behalf.

Despite this position, Brisbane City Council is confident that the State Government will offer support in the enforcement of this policy. 

According to Councillor Massey the lack of due process in this decision starkly contrasts a similar resolution made by Moreton Bay Council, to repeal their Persons Experiencing Homelessness Camping Framework.

This framework essentially allowed individuals to camp on public property, provided they don’t cause a disturbance such as using illicit drugs, urinating and making noise.

The decision to repeal this framework was made back in February when Moreton Bay Council voted to amend local by-laws, a right granted by state legislation.

Once successful, authorities and rough sleepers were given until March 12th to prepare which was coincidentally, just 24 hours before Mayor Schrinner’s announcement. 

Northwest Community Group’s founder Paul Slater commented on the challenges of such short notice in an interview with The Wire’s Artem Rednikin.

“[They] Sent a letter through to me saying that I had to remove all the charity’s tents in the Brisbane City Council’s area which is just not feasible and there’s nowhere for these people to go," he said.

He also highlighted potential dangers of such an immediate policy change, recalling instances of self-harm and suicide in homeless community.

“This is the reality of what happens when you target vulnerable people…..some of them are going to give up.”

Requesting that charities remove tents on behalf of their occupants indeed doesn’t seem realistic and I doubt there is a legal framework to penalise organisations for providing supplies to the homeless community.

Rather, forbidding NGOs to support vulnerable people may give those individuals less opportunity to escape homelessness and find accommodation.  

Both decisions unluckily coincided with the aftermath of cyclone Alfred which damaged many homes in South East Queensland to the point of being unlivable.

A resulting spike in demand for temporary and permanent housing, has added to a housing waitlist of 47,000 in Queensland and strained associated services.

"We saw reports that homeless encampments in Moreton Bay were closing down and moving to Brisbane, and we won't allow that to happen," was the response from Mayor Schrinner. 

Shifting responsibility to other jurisdictions in a duty-of-care hot potato has a long history.

A glimpse into overseas models may give insight into the future of Australia should these kinds of policies continue.  

Whether it’s to ‘clean up’ undesirables before an Olympic tournament or minimise homelessness ahead of a political summit, nations across the globe have attempted to move on rough sleepers.

Sometimes, authorities contact loved ones in other cities to reunite homeless people with old support networks, though this is rarely the case.

“Once they get you out of their city, they really don’t care what happens to you,” Jeff Weinberger, co-founder of the Florida Homelessness Action Coalition told a Guardian reporter.

Research has demonstrated that involuntary relocation is a strong predictor of poorer health outcomes, greater expense and hospitalisations.

Furthermore, transferring people across state or even national borders presents challenges for collecting homelessness data and could lead to severe underestimations. 

All of this begs the question; why would the Mayor publicly announce a policy he had no power to enact, with no warning, little research backing and no State Police support? 

As an isolated decision, there seems to be little justification, however broader political trends may produce some answers.

A global cost-of-living crisis for working-class people combined with a saturated media landscape has produced the perfect ecosystem for populist movements and mistrust in institutions.

Political figures across the spectrum are seizing the opportunity to ‘stand up to the elites’  by subverting conventional democratic procedures.  

Populism in its inception advocated for agrarian working-class people and fair tax policy.

Modern populists unfortunately often weaponise this ‘for the people’ sentiment in order to distract from inequitable policies and gain votes.

These politicians typically thrive in periods of economic disparity and gain even more power the more out-of-control people feel about their circumstance.

Giddens argues that our runaway-world and a feeling “that we are all in the grip of forces over which we have no control,” hugely plays into the hands of populist movements.

Social media algorithms also play a role when they capitalise on shock value, division and promote expensive lifestyles that make the masses feel even more isolated from ‘elite’ decision makers. 

Though the Mayor and other Australian politicians aren’t as explicitly populist as other leaders, caution should be exercised when well-established procedures are undermined, no matter the reason.

The World Press Freedom Index has also raised concern about subtle shortcuts, citing Australia’s lack of free press as an inhibitor to political discernment.

Now more than ever, adequate political education and transparent processes are critical in defending democratic institutions and protecting democracy.