Ms Sinead Kerin:

On constitutional protection for the right to housing, I will note briefly the relevant provision of the South African Constitution, which is as follows:

Everyone has the right to access to adequate housing. The State must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right.

The issue is one of moving forward and legislation can be introduced subsequently. It is not an issue of providing a key to a home but of moving forward and progressively realising the objective, much like the model adopted in Finland where there is a constant state of improvement.

Therefore, an obligation would be put on the council to provide emergency accommodation and limits would be placed on the length of stays in emergency accommodation. That is progressively realising that right. In none of the jurisdictions we examined was there a situation of judiciary versus the allocation of resources. That difficulty does not arise. It is not shown in any of the jurisdictions. I do not know if our psyche causes us to be paranoid about private rights. This involves the progressive realisation of a right. It is a basic flow of protection. It means trying to improve the situation going forward. There is no right to a house per se. The difficulty that arises between the judiciary and the allocation of resources is not played out in other countries. I do not know where that difficulty would arise here because it is a progressive right. It is not an absolute right. That is our take on it. None of the jurisdictions we looked at has that difficulty. In South Africa, there is deference to the state as the legislature to allocate the resources as it sees it fit. However, the job of the judiciary is to ensure it is proportionate, reasonable and balanced against other rights. It is not a black or white situation. It is about a balancing of the rights. I hope that brings some clarity.