In a notable decision from the ACT Supreme Court, Justice Verity McWilliam has sided with three long-term public housing residents in Canberra, ruling that a government relocation policy violated their procedural fairness and overlooked human rights protections.
The Case Details
The three women had resided in their ACT public housing units for 27 to 42 years. In 2020 and 2022, they received eviction notices as part of the Growing and Renewing Public Housing Program, which aimed to sell or redevelop the properties after tenants relocated.
Justice McWilliam determined that the Commissioner for Social Housing and its representatives acted unlawfully by not providing adequate procedural fairness in the eviction process. The court emphasized that the women’s human rights, particularly the right to a secure home, were not properly assessed.
A Cultural and Historical Nod
In her judgment, Justice McWilliam highlighted the profound significance of home, drawing from an iconic stralian film. She referenced the 1997 cult classic The Castle, quoting the character Darryl Kerrigan: “It’s not a house, it’s a home. A man’s home is his castle … You can’t just walk in and steal our homes.”
Although the film’s line pertains to constitutional protections rather than state law, the judge noted that the underlying principle remains relevant. She further connected this to ancient wisdom by citing Roman philosopher Cicero: “What more sacred, what more strongly guarded by every holy feeling, than a man’s own home?”
These references underscore the enduring value societies place on personal dwellings, tracing back to Roman legal traditions.
Outcome and Implications
The court ordered the Commissioner for Social Housing to cover the women’s legal costs, allowing all three to stay in their homes. During the trial, the Commissioner admitted to the procedural fairness lapse but contested the human rights allegations.
Under the ACT’s Human Rights Act, public entities must align their actions with human rights standards. This includes safeguarding homes from arbitrary or unlawful interference, reinforcing the inviolability of one’s residence.
This ruling sets a precedent for balancing urban renewal initiatives with residents’ fundamental rights, ensuring decisions respect established legal safeguards.
