‘They’ve been praying endlessly’: Glimmer of hope for public housing tower residents

Public housing tower residents have been offered a reprieve by the state opposition, which is pledging to pause the tower demolition program and fix the buildings where possible to protect thousands of homes.

The David versus Goliath battle between the residents and the Victorian government was fought in the High Court this week, in a bid to establish whether those living in the towers were treated fairly as the state made plans to demolish and redevelop 44 towers across Melbourne.

With residents involved in the class action – who live in three towers across Flemington and North Melbourne – expecting to wait until after November’s election for a verdict, opposition housing spokesman David Southwick said a Coalition government would pause and review the project.

“What we see the government doing is demolishing people’s homes, many [who] have lived in these homes for 20-plus years, without any certainty of where they’re going to go,” Southwick said at the Victorian Council of Social Service’s community sector summit.

“We will certainly pause to ensure that no more of those towers will be demolished. And where we can fix them up, we’ll fix them up, and ensure we get those many vulnerable Victorians … back into the communities that they have been in for years.”

Southwick also criticised the number of apartments vacant within many of the remaining towers. “When we have a housing shortage, why do we have so much vacant housing? Why haven’t they been fixed?” he said.

The government’s decision to demolish Melbourne’s 44 public housing towers has faced sharp criticism from residents, community members and advocates since it was announced by then-premier Daniel Andrews in 2023.

A legal challenge was launched almost immediately following the announcement. The class action was dismissed by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, before it was granted a rare application for special leave to appeal by the High Court, which was heard on Wednesday.

Louisa Bassini, the managing tenancy and housing lawyer at Inner Melbourne Community Legal, which is representing residents from three of the 44 towers, said the case would set an important precedent for others living in public housing.

“Just because you don’t own your home, that doesn’t mean that a decision to relocate you doesn’t warrant procedural fairness,” Bassini said.

Among those included in the challenge are North Melbourne residents Hawa Hussien and Hawa Warsame. The long-time friends and neighbours have both lived in the same public housing tower for 28 years. Between them, they have raised 17 children there, and love being close to family, friends and the wider community.

Both women say the government’s decision to relocate them and knock down their beloved tower feels as if a rug has been pulled out from underneath them and their whole world.

“There’s been no communication … There’s been no interest from the department with regard to these people’s wellbeing and how they’re coping with this issue. [They] feel like they have not been heard,” said Warsame’s daughter, who translated for the women.

Two of the 44 towers have already been demolished and in January, a further seven were earmarked for the next phase of demolition. The project is expected to result in the relocation of about 10,000 residents.

Last month, the decision to bulldoze the towers was criticised in a United Nations report.

Under the plan overseen by state government agency Homes Victoria, residents have been offered alternative accommodation in community housing properties, and relocated renters would later have the opportunity to return to social housing within their neighbourhood based on their eligibility and needs when the redevelopment had been completed.

Social housing is an umbrella term which refers to both public and community housing. Unlike state-owned public housing, community housing is owned and operated by independent not-for-profit organisations. Rent can be set at a higher rate, and utilities are charged separately.

Hussien and Warsame were offered alternative accommodation in community housing in Kensington, but both declined because they said they did not receive accurate information about the rental agreement.

They also said the residences felt unfamiliar and smaller than their current homes, and weren’t within the well-established community where they feel comfortable.

The thought of moving is “anxiety-inducing” and “borderline crippling”, Warsame’s daughter added.

Both women say they hope the High Court will let them remain in their homes.

“This whole issue, I feel like no one’s put a human lens to it. It’s been very much a politicised issue,” said Warsame’s daughter.

“They’ve been praying endlessly that the decision is that they get to stay. And they’re really hoping that that will be the outcome.”

At the High Court on Wednesday, lawyers representing the residents argued that the demolition decisions infringed upon their legally recognised rights, and that they had not been afforded procedural fairness.

“Tenants had contractual rights to occupy and exclusively possess their homes,” they said, according to an outline of oral arguments released by the court. “The established social communities in the towers were an intrinsic aspect of tenants’ homes, and were necessarily dispersed by the decision [to demolish].”

Homes Victoria argued that it had the power to develop land and its decision was “not capable of directly affecting” the individual legal rights of tenants.

“The [demolition] decision was the adoption of a general policy, was not based on considerations personal to any particular renter, and did not affect individual renters differently from each other,” lawyers for Homes Victoria argued, according to an outline of their oral arguments.

A spokesperson for Homes Victoria said the government was redeveloping the housing estates to ensure they meet modern building standards, and ensure a high quality of life for all residents.

“It would be inappropriate for Homes Victoria to make any comments on the current legal proceedings at this time,” they said.

The court is expected to return its decision within roughly 10 weeks.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.

You have reached your maximum number of saved items.

Remove items from your saved list to add more.

You've used all of your gift articles. 3 more will become available on the 1st of every month.