Ms Tanya Ward:

I will share my response with my colleague. We support a constitutional right to housing and the time is right to seek a constitutional referendum. It does not guarantee a house for every person, as has been noted, but it would set a clear direction to the Government about what it must do with respect to housing. Looking at the standard and unpacking it, there would be an onus on the State to provide homeless accommodation or a homeless services response and to provide social housing to vulnerable groups. It would also have to look at the quality of accommodation, as conditions have a major impact on the welfare of children and families.

There is the question of how a constitutional right to housing has been interpreted in other countries when people have taken cases under such a provision. It has not necessarily led to a slap on the wrist for a government or that a particular person had to be given a house. These are progressive rights so governments have had to realise them over time in line with available resources.

It puts a spotlight on the Government's approach. Has the Government done everything that it can with its available resources to address this issue or have its decisions or actions been irrational in some way? It would shift the direction of how homeless and housing policy are developed. We have heard a few times about the issue with using prevention measures to keep people in their homes which would be challenged because we have private property rights in the Constitution. The Chief Justice and members of the court in general seem to be quite open about this issue which needs to be tested. If we had a right to housing in the Constitution, it would help to balance that issue. Private property rights would not trump the right to housing, nor would the right to housing trump private property rights. The courts would have to interpret both together. As the Ombudsman for Children said, it would be a strong statement that we are about providing everyone with an adequate standard of living, including the right to a house. It does not mean in reality that everyone gets a house but is more about the approach of the State to housing and accommodation. That is what it means legally.

A good case in South Africa explains this. It relates to a local equivalent of a county council which knocked down a shanty town for social housing. It was a good goal but the court said that the authority could not knock down a shanty town and not provide an alternative for the families living there. It found against the state. Those are the ways that a right to housing could improve or help the decisions that the Government and county councils might be making in this area. My colleague, Mr. Mooney, will address best interest assessments, and I will come back about developmental issues and long-term impacts.