HRHH QCOSS

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: May case study: Eviction #34980
    HRHH QCOSSHRHH QCOSS
    Participant

    This case was discussed at Q-Shelter’s June Learning Exchange, here is a summary of this discussion.

    When giving consideration, it is important to focus on the purpose of a decision or action. Participants of Q-Shelter’s May Learning Exchange determined the housing provider’s primary purpose was to secure the stability of Mia and Josh at their current location while also ensuring the safety and security of neighbours.

    It was thought that the service provider needed to make sure Mia and Josh maintained their existing connections to mental health and education support services while receiving additional support to sustain the tenancy. It was also agreed that the service provider should talk to Mia and Josh’s neighbours to seek their understanding and identify their expectations.

    When challenged with the question—what if the housing provider manager said, “We should evict these tenants. In these circumstances, we have always evicted, why wouldn’t we do that now?”—participants gave consideration to an eviction action.

    Although an eviction notice could be lawfully issued under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), participants strongly agreed that Mia and Josh’s human rights would be significantly limited if evicted. Moving house would disrupt both their access to stable health services and Josh’s education as well as limit their right to Section 26: Protection of Families and Children of the Act, especially if they became homeless.

    Participants thought that, in the circumstances, an eviction would not be necessary as there were less restrictive interventions that could be taken to support Mia and Josh and help sustain their tenancy. Overall, when considering the full facts, the benefits of achieving neighbour’s right to privacy and security did not outweigh the harm caused to Mia and Josh through eviction in this particular situation.

    in reply to: May case study: Eviction #34859
    HRHH QCOSSHRHH QCOSS
    Participant

    There are 23 rights identified in the Act. Which would need to be considered when deciding on Mia’s tenancy situation?
    We have highlighted those that need specific consideration in this situation?
    Recognition and equality before the law
    Right to life
    Protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
    Freedom from forced work
    Freedom of movement
    Freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief
    Freedom of expression
    Peaceful assembly and freedom of association
    Taking part in public life
    Property rights
    Privacy and reputation
    Protection of families and children
    Cultural rights—generally
    Cultural rights—Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples
    Right to liberty and security of person
    Humane treatment when deprived of liberty
    Fair hearing
    Rights in criminal proceedings
    Children in the criminal process
    Right not to be tried or punished more than once
    Retrospective criminal laws
    Right to education
    Right to health services

    Act: Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)