Legal appeal launched over public housing tower demolitions

Inner Melbourne Community Legal (IMCL) has launched an appeal in the Supreme Court of Victoria on behalf of public housing residents, challenging the state government’s decision to demolish high-rise towers in North Melbourne and Flemington.

The appeal follows an April ruling that dismissed a class action brought by residents, which argued the decision by Homes Victoria to demolish their homes breached their human rights and was made without adequate consultation.

IMCL has now filed six grounds for appeal, led by a new plaintiff, Jason Mallard, a disability pensioner who has lived at 120 Racecourse Rd for nearly three decades.

“We want what anyone would want,” Mr Mallard said. “To be treated with respect, to have a say in what happens to our homes, and to not be moved around like we don’t matter.”

Mr Mallard and his legal team allege that the judge erred in finding that Homes Victoria had fulfilled its responsibilities under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act and was not obligated to consult residents before making its decision.

“The decision to demolish the public housing towers was made without proper regard for the human rights of residents,” IMCL CEO Nadia Morales said. 

Thousands of residents are being uprooted from homes that are not just bricks and mortar, but communities that provide sanctuary, security and identity.

The appeal also challenges the inclusion of evidence that IMCL says should have been excluded. During the original trial, Homes Victoria refused to release certain documents justifying its demolition strategy, citing Cabinet confidentiality. The expert reports behind the decision remain secret, further fuelling criticism of the process.

The class action stems from the state government’s 2023 announcement that 44 high-rise public housing towers would be demolished by 2051, starting with towers in Flemington and North Melbourne. The government’s redevelopment plan will see publicly owned land leased to private developers to deliver a mix of social, affordable and private housing under a “ground lease” model.

IMCL says its appeal highlights not only the lack of transparency but the procedural unfairness of how the decision was made. Residents like Mr Mallard say they were never consulted and only learned about the plans through media reports.

The appeal is being closely watched by housing advocates, who argue that the decision represents a wider pattern of government action that marginalises vulnerable communities.

“This entire process has been shrouded in unacceptable secrecy since before the decision was made to demolish the towers,” Ms Morales said.

Community anger has intensified in recent weeks after Homes Victoria began pre-demolition works while residents were still living in the buildings. The works have since been paused following protests and community rallies.

“To begin the works while residents were still living in the towers is a continuation of the behaviour by Homes Victoria since the demolition plans were first announced in 2023,” Ms Morales said. “Residents were given inadequate notice and told to simply put up with the inconvenience.”

In April, Supreme Court Justice Melinda Richards found that the government had acted lawfully and had no legal obligation to consult residents. Minister for Housing Harriet Shing welcomed the ruling, saying the redevelopment was “lawful, reasonable and justified” and that the government would continue to support residents throughout the relocation process.

But critics say the human toll of the project has not been acknowledged. Ms Morales said that despite the government’s promise of support, it had failed to provide assurances around residents’ right to return or protections if they are transferred to community housing.

“Even now, Homes Victoria continues to deny any certainty to residents about their right to return to the estates,” she said. “Nor have they provided any guarantees about what happens if they are forced into the community housing system, which doesn’t carry the same rights and protections as public housing.”

The IMCL-led appeal is expected to be heard later this year, with a final ruling to follow. •