Public housing residents class action trial: where things are at

Jeannie Erceg knows what it’s like to be told she must leave her home at short notice. 

She lived in public housing on Bang St in Prahran for 24 years, then was relocated to Port Melbourne about six years ago, after what she said was a long and fair consultation process. 

In 2022, Ms Erceg was told she had to relocate again, but this time, she didn’t feel she had any say in the matter. 

“I was led to believe it would be my forever home,” she said. “We had vigils to try and stop the demolition and of course the demolition went ahead.”

Ms Erceg joined a rally on Saturday, October 19, where hundreds marched from Flemington to North Melbourne to oppose the Victorian Government’s redevelopment plans.

“Public housing should be saved. It doesn’t make any sense to demolish them,” she said. 

Just over a year since the state government announced plans to redevelop all 44 of Melbourne’s public housing towers by 2051, a class action alleging residents’ human rights weren’t properly considered went to trial at the Supreme Court of Victoria on October 28 and 29.

On the first day of the trial, Homes Victoria chief executive Simon Newport admitted that former Premier Dan Andrews had made the announcement prior to informing local residents. However, he stated in court that a community consultation forum was held after the announcement. 

Justice Melinda Richards had “expected to give the parties a decision by the end of the year”, but the trial was adjourned on its second day due to certain documents being shielded by cabinet privilege. This has led to a dispute between the parties over the release of these documents, likely causing the trial to be postponed until next year.

A parliamentary inquiry was also announced this month and is due to report in December 2025. The inquiry will consider whether the towers’ 10,000 residents were properly consulted and will also explore the cost of demolition versus refurbishment, which some argue is a more sustainable option. 

Single mother and registered nurse, Bezawit Gizaw, lives in public housing at 126 Racecourse Rd. She told North West City News she only found out about the government’s plans in July through her neighbours.

“There was word coming out because [at] Holland Court … they were getting all kicked out and getting moved,” she said.

Ms Gizaw hadn’t heard the news yet because of health issues that meant she was “all over the place”.

“I said, ‘why, what’s happening?’ and then I got, ‘oh, don’t you know, they’re going to demolish this housing’ and I said, ‘and send us where?’”

Announced in September 2023 by then Premier Daniel Andrews as part of Victoria’s Big Housing Build, the redevelopment of Melbourne’s public housing towers is set to be “Australia’s biggest-ever urban renewal project”. 

The first sites earmarked for redevelopment are 33 Alfred St in North Melbourne, and 120 Racecourse Rd and 12 Holland St in Flemington. Homes Victoria has already signed a contract for their demolition. 

The new towers will house 30,000 people, 11,000 of whom will be in public housing. The rest will be in a mix of affordable housing and market rate housing, a fact that troubles residents like Ms Gizaw, who experienced a traumatic few years when health issues, the pandemic, and becoming a single mother rendered her unable to work before she finally found her present home in Flemington. 

“The relocation teams [at] all the meetings I’ve been attending ... they’re not telling me that there will be public housing, they keep repeating about this affordable housing,” she said.

This doesn’t reassure her.

“This property, for me, is my security until I’m able to sort myself out and stand on my own two feet again,” Ms Gizaw said.

If they’re not building public housing, then what does that make me?

Rent for community housing is typically 30 per cent of household income, while rent for public housing is 25 per cent. There are also key differences in who manages the housing. 

Since announcing its plan, the government has faced backlash from residents,  associations, planning academics and political opponents for the plan’s lack of transparency.

Many of the towers’ residents said they found out about the government’s plans through the media at the same time as the wider community.

“Community members ... ought to be able to understand why the decision to demolish was made,” Inner Melbourne Community Legal managing lawyer Louisa Bassini told North West City News. 

The North Melbourne-based law firm filed the class action on behalf of residents that proceeded to Supreme Court trial on October 28 and 29.  

Ms Bassini said that while residents had a wide spectrum of opinions, most were telling her they were disappointed and fearful for the future of their community.

“We’re hoping that our clients, the residents of the towers, will have an opportunity to have their voices heard,” she said. 

They feel under an immense amount of pressure to make decisions, that have a huge impact on their lives, in a really rushed way.

The government said every resident would be guaranteed a new home while construction is taking place, with the option of returning once the new towers are complete. 

“We’ve knocked on every single door of the 5,800 households across the 44 towers, to make sure every resident has the support they need, and their questions answered,” a spokesperson told North West City News. 

Most of the towers were built in the 1960s, with an expected shelf-life of 50 years. The government said maintenance alone would cost $2.3bn over the next 20 years, and that the towers would “never be able to meet contemporary codes, nationwide energy rating schemes or accessibility needs for a significant number of households”. 

The only viable option, the government maintains, is to demolish and rebuild.

One of the pieces of evidence at next week’s trial is expected to be a report by architectural firm OFFICE, which argues the government could save $364 million by refurbishing the three towers. Upgrades proposed by OFFICE include widening doorways, and adding balconies, double-glazed windows and split air-conditioning systems in each unit.

OFFICE also said its proposal provides a 55 per cent reduction in global warming potential compared to demolition, and that it would avoid the social and health costs that come with relocating residents and breaking up communities.

Victorian Greens leader Samantha Ratnam said in response to the report that “it was always only a matter of time until Labor’s flimsy housing plan would start to fall apart.”

She added that Labor was “deliberately [using] secrecy and poor transparency to obstruct Victorians from seeing the truth that Labor cares more about its property developer mates than making sure people have a roof over their head.”

However, the government was dismissive of the report, telling North West City News it was “another attempt to block the delivery of modern, accessible and fit-for-purpose social housing”.

A comparable costing document by the government doesn’t exist.

In September, a Supreme Court judge was “startled” when Homes Victoria said it had no documents to support its decision to demolish the towers in North Melbourne and Flemington. “Flemington and North Melbourne both stand to lose an important and diverse element of their communities with the demolition and sell off,” Ms Bassini said. 

“I think that everybody should be concerned about that and be asking the government to at least put into the public sphere the documentary evidence of why this decision was made.” •