National Homelessness Implementation Plan
With over 20,500 Victorians homeless on the 2006 census night, the issue of homelessness has taken on increased saliency for Australian and Victorian governments, resulting in the release of the 2008 White Paper entitled The Road Home. This initiative coordinates all levels of government, business, not-for-profit organisations and the community at large, with a view to halve overall homelessness by the year 2020. The plan obligates Victoria to implement measures aimed at prevention and early intervention of homelessness. Practically, this amounts to constructing 118 new long-term accommodation units provided with support services in central and remote Victoria, founding the Social Housing Advocacy and Support Program (SHASP) to support ‘at risk’ tenants from housing breakdown and establishing support and response services to immediately aid individuals and families in securing accommodation.

Furthermore, the plan aims to combat the physical and mental health problems disproportionately plaguing homeless persons through offering 50 intensive psychosocial support packages for people with enduring mental illness, aimed at achieving stability, independence and social inclusion. Additionally, with 33% of homeless Victorians below the age of 18, the government will also focus on responding proactively to young persons experiencing homelessness and has committed to the construction of a youth facility able to house and provide outreach support to up to 45 youths.

Other aspects of the Victorian implementation plan include increased legal and practical support for women and children fleeing or experiencing family violence in the home, case management support for those exiting custodial prison sentences, culturally sensitive support for indigenous women and children and a commitment to better mainstream and government administration of these services. So far, the Victorian government has been proactive in implementing their plan by securing over $154.8 million in funds for their 2013 interim targets asell as beginning to establish the additional services required to realise The Road Home goals.

Other Australian states have also begun to implement strategies towards achieving a reduction in homelessness within their localities. WA has pledged to construct 33 new social housing dwellings and to employ Alcohol and Drug Housing Supporters to provide tenancy and counselling support to homeless persons with substance issues.

Similarly, Queensland has begun services such as RentConnect which coaches homeless persons on how to negotiate the housing rental processes and specialised disability support for those in need of care or exiting care programs. South Australia, too, has taken initiative with its Ladder mentoring program which facilitates training, education and employment of homeless persons, as well as constructing additional family violence shelters together with shelter for perpetrators, thereby allowing victims to remain or return home.

Projects such as the Protocol for Homeless People in Public Places and the Nepean Youth Homelessness Project are underway in New South Wales aimed at decreasing discrimination of homeless persons and transitioning young people sleeping rough to stable long-term accommodation. The ACT has outlined plans to increase temporary housing and coordinate skills training programs for those affected by homelessness, whilst the Northern Territory is focusing on supporting homeless persons affected by family violence with its Family Violence Investment Strategy. Lastly, Tasmania has begun projects aimed at bringing homeless persons into the workforce, funding specialist intervention and providing more low-cost sustainable housing.

Overall these services and facilities should ease the burden the housing costs, increase access to case management services, reduce the prevalence of ill health amongst the homeless population and help reconnect with the general community.

Australia’s Ratification of the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR
The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Optional Protocol) will open for signature this year on 29 September by States party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Australia, who has ratified the ICESCR, will have the opportunity to reinforce its commitment to ensuring the improved protection and promotion of human rights.

The Human Rights Law Resource Centre (HRLRC) has authored a submission advocating for the Australian government to ratify the Optional Protocol in full. In addition to the evidence put forth in the submission, ratification would ensure better protection of human rights that matter most to people experiencing or at risk of homelessness, including rights to housing, healthcare, education, social security and basic amenities, as well as the right to live with dignity and security. Ratification would provide homeless persons with an avenue to redress violations they commonly experience would amount to a meaningful step forward for Australia in the pursuit of justice for the nation’s most disadvantaged members.

To download the HRLRC submission, go to:
http://www.hrlrc.org.au/files/op-icescr-hrlrc-submission-to-government.pdf

Alice Springs By-Laws
On 20 July 2024 the Alice Springs Town Council voted unanimously to release a number of controversial public place by-laws for public consultation.

The by-laws would give council rangers the power to fine people $130 for begging in Alice Springs and the power to dispose of blankets found in public places in Alice Springs. Currently rangers have the ability to move blankets used by Indigenous people who are homeless in Alice Springs, where the temperature often drops to zero degrees Celcius on a winter night. The by laws would also ban camping in the dry Todd River bed, which is regularly used by Indigenous people experiencing homelessness.
Concerns have been raised about the fairness and justice of the laws. The by laws are intended to curb homelessness and begging in Alice Springs but have been widely criticized for the negative impact they are likely to have on the homeless and specifically on Indigenous people.

There has also been critique about the utility of laws. Jonathan Pilbrow, from the NT Council of Social Services asked "what will be achieved by fining people who probably have a limited capacity to pay, which is what drives them to beg in the first place?''

The principal legal officer for Legal Aid in Central Australia, Russell Goldflam has also noted that the by-laws could overlap or be inconsistent with the Local Government Act by potentially giving Northern Territory Police Officers additional powers within Alice Springs.

Read more:
http://www.alicesprings.nt.gov.au/astc_site/your_council/by_laws/draft_by_laws_for_consultation
http://www.ntcoss.org.au/news/2009/07/ntcoss-media-release-proposed-laws-beggars-belief-22-07-09
http://abc.com.au/news/stories/2009/07/28/2638406.htm?site=local

VLRC inquiry into Surveillance in Public Places
People experiencing homelessness rely on public space in different ways. Those who sleep rough may have little choice about where they perform various intimate activities such as sleeping, bathing, urinating/defecating.[1] For others, public space provides a place to exist in a broad sense; to be safe and warm, to eat and drink, to be with friends and family, and to rest. For this group of people, public space can provide a welcome respite from the squalid or dangerous conditions at the bottom end of the Victorian accommodation market.  Surveillance is an important aspect of the relationship between people experiencing homelessness and public space.

“On Camera, 24/7” is a submission is made by the PILCH Homeless Persons’ Legal Clinic in response to the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s Consultation Paper on Surveillance in Public Places. This submission reflects the experiences of the HPLC in speaking directly with people experiencing homelessness about their perspectives on public space issues.  In response to the Consultation we were also fortunate to work with the VLRC in a hosting a forum on public place surveillance which sought the views and comments of participants (all of whom had experienced homelessness) on the issue of surveillance in public places. 

The HPLC submission reflects the way in which people experiencing homelessness often find themselves on the wrong side of public space. For some people it is difficult to blend in with the crowd and look ‘normal’ and surveillance serves to amplify this sense of isolation and difference. Our discussions with participants of the surveillance forum demonstrated that being watched (by surveillance cameras / security personnel / police) is a fact of life. It is an unfortunate paradox that the people who rely so much on public space for their quotidian existence are the same people who are watched, monitored, moved on and generally excluded. Furthermore, comments made during the surveillance forum indicate that people experiencing homelessness seem resigned to the fact that for them, privacy is almost non-existent. This is not good enough.

The HPLC considers that addressing the way in which surveillance is used in public places provides a good opportunity to better protect the rights of people experiencing homelessness to privacy and to non-discrimination. The submission makes a number of key recommendations in this area, including:

• That in making any recommendations for reform or regulation of surveillance in public places, the VLRC be guided by and seek to uphold the full range of human rights including the right to privacy, the right to non-discrimination and the right to freedom of movement.
• That surveillance principles be adopted to provide an overarching framework guiding regulation of public place surveillance, including a principle to the effect that ‘Public place surveillance should not be used to profile particular groups of people or to discriminate against people’ be adopted.
• That funding be provided for a detailed examination of the ways in which surveillance (a) deters crime in respect of people experiencing homelessness and (b) results in increased apprehension rates where acts of violence are caught on camera.

Read more

Human Rights Concerns in the Face of New Powers for Victorian Police
Victoria is soon to enact legislation granting police extensive stop-and-search powers in an attempt to combat the recent rise in knife attacks and violent assaults on the street. The legislation entitles police to designate a suspect dangerous area within which they may stop and search anyone against whom a senior on-duty officer has evidence that he or she is in possession of a weapon.

Whilst Premiere John Brumby has argued that this move is necessary for improving public safety, it has been heralded by others as a clear encroachment on individual human rights, such as rights to privacy and freedom of movement and expression. Of equal apparent concern are the implications of this legislation for homeless individuals. Rough sleepers who are forced to carry out their private living practices in public spaces are at a disproportionate risk of being targeted, making them more vulnerable to human rights violations.

Although street violence is a serious issue that requires redress, passing laws that result is many non-violent homeless persons being targeted cannot be seen as the most effective solution to the problem at hand. Rather, better strategies aimed at tackling alcohol abuse and similar causal issues should be the focus if all Victorians are to enjoy equal respect of rights.

Melbourne’s Road Home
A new initiative entitled ‘Melbourne’s Road Home’ is targeting the pressing issue of homelessness through the provision of grants to agencies providing services. Financial assistance is put towards supporting key projects aimed at improving the conditions and rights of homeless persons and bettering the community’s understanding of the complexities involved in homelessness.

This year, the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation is set to host a Melbourne’s Road Home Forum, which will invite community members to interact with individuals who have experienced homelessness with the aim of challenging and enriching the way they understand and engage with the issue of homelessness.

Eviction in Phnom Penh, Cambodia
On July 17th, the Cambodian authorities forcibly evicted 60 low-income families, known as the community ‘Group 78’, in central Phnom Penh. Homes were dismantled and the area bulldozed over two days, marking the end of a 3-year long struggle by Group 78 to resist the eviction notices issued to them. The actions taken by the Cambodian government have been condemned by Human Rights advocates, out of growing concern that this will merely result in increased poverty and health degeneration among the community’s members.

Families of Group 78 claim to have been forced to accept government compensation of $8000 for each household, lest their homes be destroyed, leaving them with nothing. Seven families remained vigilant, but agreed to final negotiations of $20,000 in compensation for each family, with the exception of one refusing family whose property was nonetheless destroyed. The compensation has also been criticised as being well below market value for such inner-city real estate and distances the community from their jobs, schools and other essential services. The eviction has been condemned by Amnesty International, the World Bank, the Asia Development Bank, the United Nations and others who have called for a moratorium on involuntary evictions.

Homeground Services v Mohamed (Residential Tenancies) [2009] VCAT 1131 (6 July 2024)
Case involving transitional housing provider found to be ‘public authority’
Application of sections 13(1) and 38(1) of the Charter.

On 23 November 2024 a tenancy agreement (the transitional tenancy) commenced between Homeground Services (landlord) and the tenant.

In this case it was noted that part of the landlord’s role was that of a private welfare agency. Further, it was noted that in providing transitional housing to homeless tenants, that the landlord applied a ‘youth tenancy’ policy in respect of the tenant (who was 21 years old).

The youth tenancy policy provided (among other things) that a tenant must have an ‘exit strategy’ in respect of moving out of the transitional rental premises into either private or public housing. In the case of tenants eligible for public housing, the the policy provided that where an application for public housing was made and approved by the Director of Housing within 14 months of commencement of the transitional tenancy, the tenant could remain in transitional housing.

On 5 February 2025 the tenant was served with a ‘no reason’ notice to vacate and required to move out of the premises by 10 June 2009. An application for possession of the premises was to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) on 17 June 2009. The matter was heard by Member Perlman of VCAT on 2 July 2009.

In determining this matter the Tribunal referred to the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 and held the landlord was a public authority on the basis that it was ‘an entity whose functions are or include functions of public nature’. In this regard, the Member referred to section 38(1) of the Charter which states‘… it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a human right or, in making a decision, to fail to give proper consideration to a relevant human right.’ In considering the obligations of the landlord as public authority, the Tribunal referred to section 13(1) of the Charter which states that ‘A person has the right – (a) not to have his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with…’

In considering the evidence, the Tribunal found the landlord did not make application for public housing on behalf of the tenant and the landlord’s representative conceded if the tenant were to be evicted he would likely be rendered homeless. It was also found that the tenant was able to sustain a tenancy and had not failed to comply with a policy or request of the landlord.

The Tribunal held that that in giving the tenant a ‘no reason’ notice that the landlord had acted incompatibly with section 13(1) of the Charter and furthermore (or in the alternative) that the landlord had failed to give proper consideration to a relevant human right. As such, the giving of the notice to vacate was found to be unlawful pursuant to section 38(1) of the Charter.

On 21 December 2008, the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd and Minister for Housing, Tanya Plibersek, released the Government's White Paper on Homelessness: The Road Home. The Road Home sets out the Federal government’s strategy for reducing homelessness until the year 2020.

The Road Home noted that existing legislation needed to be strengthened and brought up to date and that new legislation be introduced to ensure people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness receive quality services.

As a result, on 16 June 2009, the Minister for Housing requested that the House Standing Committee on Family, Community, Housing and Youth (Committee) conduct an inquiry into the content of homelessness legislation (the Inquiry).  More specifically, the Committee will make inquiries into the principles and service standards that could be incorporated into homelessness legislation, in order to strengthen existing legislation.

The Committee invited interested parties to participate in the Inquiry by making formal submissions and anticipates it will report back to the Federal government by December 2009.

In response to this invitation, the Homeless Persons Legal Clinic (the HPLC) will be making a formal submission to the Inquiry which will not only address the specific questions asked by the Committee, but also go beyond this to address the bigger question of how to improve and strengthen the current legislative response to homelessness generally.

The Federal government in The Road Home has failed to recognise that addressing homelessness is a matter of ensuring that the human rights of all individuals are adequately protected and promoted.  The failure to consider homelessness in terms of human rights means there are large gaps in its response to the problem. 

The HPLC in its submission will discuss the need to view the problem of homelessness within a human rights framework, and using this as a starting point, recommend that the gGovernment introduce a new Federal Homelessness Act which adopts a human rights approach.

As part of this, the HPLC will argue for the enshrining of the right to adequate housing as recognised in international human rights law in a new Homelessness Act. The promotion and protection of everyone’s human rights will ensure the most effective response to the homelessness crisis is achieved.

The HPLC’s submission to the Inquiry will be available from http://www.pilch.org.au/hplcpolicy/ once it has been submitted to the Committee.

For further information go to:
http://www.pilch.org.au/hplcpolicy/
http://www.aph.gov.au/House/committee/fchy/homelessness/index.htm

Intergenerational homelessness and the intergenerational use of homelessness services
Intergenerational homelessness occurs when someone experiences homelessness and has parents who have also experienced homelessness at some point in their lives. The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) have issued Position Paper considering this issue: Intergenerational homelessness and the intergenerational use of homelessness services (June 2009).

The paper notes that there appears to be no studies in which the sole focus is on intergenerational homelessness. In this context, the paper does provide a brief literature review which considers the intergenerational transmission of disadvantage and behaviours. Indeed, the paper notes ‘[c]hildren who experience homelessness alongside their parents or who are removed or separated from their parents as a result of their parents’ homelessness, are: more likely to experience higher rates of morbidity and developmental delay; more likely to go hungry; more prone to depression, anxiety, social isolation, low self-esteem and low aspirations; and, more likely to experience poorer educational outcomes and behavioural problems than children who do not experience homelessness.’

AHURI intends to study the prevalence, dynamics and structure of intergenerational homelessness. The research raises a number of questions including:

• Whether homeless has persisted in either or both generations?
• Whether it is episodic or one-off in nature?
• What socio-demographic groups are most likely to experience intergenerational homelessness and what forms?
• What are the key drivers of intergenerational homelessness?

The research will use the SAAP national Data Collection as the primary source for analysing intergenerational homelessness. It notes however that SAAP data is currently inadequate to track SAAP clients and accompanying children over any reasonable length of time. It will therefore conduct a one-off major survey, the Intergenerational Homelessness Survey which will collect data for qualitative analysis supplemented by interview and focus groups.

The research findings will be outlined in the Final Report together with policy implications flowing from those findings.

Read more at: http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/projects/p80516

• ^{PILCH Homeless Persons’ Legal Clinic, Victoria}
• ^{Australian Human Rights Commission: Housing, homelessness and human rights webpage}
• ^{Australian Lawyers for Human Rights}
• ^{Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions}
• ^{Council to Homeless Persons, Victoria} 
• ^{Homeless Persons’ Legal Service, NSW}
• ^{Homelessness Australia}
• ^{Homelessness Clearing House}
• ^{Housing Legal Clinic, South Australia}
• ^{Human Rights Law Resource Centre} 
• ^{National Coalition for the Homeless, USA}
• ^{National Homelessness Information Clearinghouse}
• ^{National Law Centre on Homelessness and Poverty}
• ^{National Policy and Advocacy Council on Homelessness, USA} 
• ^{NT Shelter}
• ^{QPILCH Homeless Persons’ Legal Clinic, Queensland}
• ^{Shelter Scotland, UK}
• ^{Shopfront Legal Service, NSW}
• ^{UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing}
• ^{Urban Justice  Centre, USA}
• ^{Youthlaw, Victoria}

<sup>Who is on the List?
People on the list include Australian community workers, lawyers, journalists, academics, people who have experienced homelessness, and homelessness government and policy workers.

Who are the List Convenors?

The List Convenor is:
Manager/Principal Solicitor

PILCH Homeless Persons Legal Clinic
PO Box 16013
Melbourne 8007
hplc@pilch.org.au
Phone: (03) 8636 4408 
Fax: (03) 8636 4455

To JOIN the list visit www.pilch.org.au/subscribe</sup>

^{Will my email details be released?
Not without your express permission. Only the List Convenors have access to subscriber details.}