The ACT Council of Social Service (ACTCOSS) has called on the ACT Government to explain why public housing tenants, many of whom have been in their homes for decades, were given a 48-hour deadline to prepare for a formal hearing to argue why they should not be forcibly relocated.
ACTCOSS CEO Dr Emma Campbell said that public housing tenants threatened with loss of their homes under the ACT Government’s Growing and Renewing Public Housing Program were given only two days to arrange representation and prepare to appear before a government-appointed panel to request an exemption.
She said Housing and Suburban Development Minister Yvette Berry and Homelessness and Housing Services Minister Rebecca Vassarotti “need to explain why it is appropriate that these vulnerable tenants, already distressed by months of uncertainty, have been given just two days to prepare their case to put before a panel organised by Housing ACT – an entity backed by revenues of hundreds of millions of dollars, nearly 300 staff, and high-powered legal resources”.
“By contrast, many tenants need support to appear in person or online, and community sector lawyers and advocates simply cannot be arranged in such limited time. Some tenants will be unable to take time off work, given the short notice.”
The ACT Government, however, said the Panel sessions were not formal hearings.
“These meetings are just an opportunity for tenants, and any support people they’d like to bring, to attend a meeting to discuss their needs and reasons for seeking an exemption to relocation to support their application if they wish to,” Ms Berry said.
Ten tenants who requested exemption from relocation were simply given the first available opportunity to meet the Tenant Relocation Exemption Panel, and have their request considered, Ms Berry said. Some tenants had waited since April for a decision.
“The ACT Government is committed to ensuring that people have a chance to discuss why they may not want to move and to talk about what supports they might need if they do,” she said.
Three of the 10 tenants contacted yesterday requested to attend a Panel session at a later date; three will attend this week in person; one will attend by phone; and three requested not to attend a Panel session in relation to their application for exemption.
Other Panel sessions will be held later, and tenants can choose a later date if they prefer.
“These meetings will be ongoing, and no one needs to attend a meeting this week if they don’t want to,” Ms Berry said.
“It is disappointing that today’s statement from ACTCOSS may cause unnecessary distress to Housing ACT tenants who are part of the Growing and Renewing Public Housing Program.”
This is the latest chapter in the ACT Government’s housing policy saga. At the end of January, 580 public housing tenants – many of them seniors, or people with dementia, disability, or chronic or complex health issues – were asked to relocate, even though, according to Dr Campbell, the government had earlier said they would not have to leave. The government wanted to use the sites (on high value land) for redevelopment, or sell them to raise revenue for more public housing developments. The government claims the program is “integral” to renewing 1,000 homes and adding 400 more. ACTCOSS wanted the government to review the program, and resource independent legal and advocacy services to represent affected tenants.
In March, ACTCOSS and other community sector organisations wrote to the ACT Government calling for an immediate end to forced relocations, and to introduce an ‘opt-in’ program (tenants could choose to relocate to an offered property that suited their needs. ACTCOSS claimed in April that the government had agreed to review the implementation of the policy, but the government refuted this. They agreed, however, to refine and better articulate processes for tenants seeking exemptions from inclusion, and to provide ongoing support.
This, ACTCOSS alleges, the government has not done.
“ACTCOSS has called for the process to relocate public housing tenants to be non-coercive and to respect the human rights of vulnerable tenants,” Dr Campbell said.
“However, giving fewer than 48 hours to vulnerable tenants to make a case as to why they should be able to remain in their homes – in some cases of up to 60 years – does not meet the criteria of being non-coercive or respectful of their human rights.”
Nor, according to ACTCOSS, has the ACT Government provided adequate information.
“ACTCOSS has written to the ACT Government on numerous occasions asking for details of the promised refined process through which vulnerable tenants can receive a discretionary decision to remain in their properties,” Dr Campbell said.
“Despite a Housing ACT promise on 5 May, that ‘upon finalisation of the Exemption Policy and Practice Guideline, expected in the coming weeks, [we] will provide a copy of this process to you,’ ACTCOSS has received no such information.
“Further, no information has been made available to tenants or the community sector as to the criteria for decision making; composition, qualification and independence of the panel; time period for the delivery of decisions; whether decisions can be appealed; and whether tenants can appear remotely.”
Housing ACT said it was committed to ensuring the exemptions process and related information – including the applications for exemption, associated materials such as factsheets, and information on independent supports – was clearly articulated so affected tenants better understood the process.
Housing ACT said it had obtained feedback from the Growth & Renewal Inclusive Partnerships (GRIP) group and the Human Rights Commission about the exemption process. Housing ACT had finalised its communications strategy to ensure affected tenants and the community were informed and had access to this information, which would be rolled out progressively.
“Eligibility to apply for an exemption centres around age, health and wellbeing,” a spokesperson said. “There needs to be a strong connection between the requirement to move and a significant risk to health and wellbeing. The GRIP will collectively consider these reasons and the tenant’s ability to relocate in balance with the needs of the Program.”
Canberra Liberals MLA Mark Parton, Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness, said the government’s approach was “utterly disgraceful but not in the least surprising”.
“This Labor/Greens government talks a big talk when it comes to caring for vulnerable housing tenants. In reality, they’re either incapable of matching that with the necessary action, or they simply don’t care.
“My heart goes out to these anxious tenants who must feel completely hi-jacked by this process. This process centres around money. It’s never been about the needs and the human rights of tenants, and under this government, it clearly never will be.”
