This article in last Friday’s Brisbane Times reported on a new ‘three strikes’ policy for social housing tenants.  Whilst there is limited detail about the policy at this stage, there are several concerns with this announcement.

Friday’s statement by Housing Minister Tim Mander follows on from previous Housing Minister, Dr Bruce Flegg, who announced the policy intent  at the opening of the National Housing Conference in Brisbane last November. We assume that Minister Mander’s policy will broadly follow the parameters set out in Dr Flegg’s speech. Here’s a quote from that speech:

“The overwhelming majority of public housing tenants do the right thing, however there is a minority whose anti-social behaviour can affect the lives of those around them,” Dr Flegg said.

“I am proposing to crack down on these unruly tenants by asking them to leave if they receive three strikes within 12 months for disruptive behaviour like noisy parties, vandalism or destroying property.

“If tenants have engaged in assault, acts of violence or drug manufacturing, the department would immediately initiate legal action to evict them.

Such statements might sound reasonable to many people and have populist appeal but, when looked at in depth, do they achieve the government’s desired outcome?

This article discusses the following questions: are there unintended consequences for vulnerable households, will these changes undermine due process in dealing with allegations of ‘unruly conduct’; does the government already have the power to do what these changes propose to do; and, is it fair to develop such a policy where there is no tenant advocate to engage with the government about the proposals.

In Queensland social housing is highly targeted, with applicants, once deemed eligible, being assessed and ranked on a five pronged scale, the highest being ‘very high needs’. Only these applicants, along with some households assessed on the ‘high needs’ level and possibly a handful of those on the third level will ever be housed given the quantity of stock.

In the Brisbane Times article, Minister Mander states that there are 23,000 households on the social housing waiting list, and 96% or just over 13,000 of those households which have been determined to have high or very high needs, will be housed.

In reality, a person has to be homeless or housed inappropriately and have multiple complicating factors which affect their ability to access and sustain housing in the private rental market to secure housing under this system. The highly targeted nature of the product means many households include people with disabilities, health and mental health issue and many dealing with social issues such as domestic violence.

Who is evicted under this model?
The Western Australian model has previously been cited as a model for anti-social behaviour polices in this state. The WA Disruptive Behaviour Management Strategy (DBMS) was introduced in May 2011. It also allows for ‘three strikes’ action before eviction.

According to a report, Disruptive Behaviour in Social Housing Tenancies, by the WA Tenant Advice Service (TASWA), the key driver of the policy was to evict tenants using the premises for illegal activity (following a drug lab explosion in a public housing property).  The policy implementation however impacts on many other vulnerable households.

Households are often issued strike notices for minor matters and matter which are beyond their control.  Those most often affected are households with children and tenants affected by mental health or domestic violence.

The introduction of the anti social behaviour policy in Queensland will require additional administration by housing providers in the issuing and recording of strike notices.  Given the additional administrative burden it imposes, it is worth considering whether the powers sought through these changes are already available under current tenancy laws.

It is currently not permitted under Queensland tenancy laws for a tenant to use the premises for an illegal purpose and a social housing provider can already seek the eviction of a tenant on this ground.

Similarly, tenants who are late in paying their rent and issued a breach notice (which they rectify) three times within one year can be taken by the housing provider to the tenancy tribunal to seek a termination of the tenancy.

These provisions, known as repeated breach, are colloquially known as, and act similarly to, a ‘three strikes’ policy.  The provisions extend to breaches by the tenant in how they use the premises and in meeting their general obligations such as keeping the premises clean and not damaging it.  These provisions are additional to the ability to seek termination on the basis of a single incident of a breach by a tenant.

In such actions, the tenancy tribunal must take into consideration the seriousness of the matters at hand.

Is Due Process undermined?
In using the repeated breach provisions of current tenancy law, the tenant must be issued a breach notice for each of the first two alleged transgressions, then can be taken directly to the tribunal (seeking an order for eviction) on the third.

If the tenant receives a breach notice, they can dispute it in writing and use the formal processes of dispute resolution set out under the laws to contest anything they disagree with.

However, under WA’s DBMP, there is no formal method to challenge a strike notice.  It is issued at the sole discretion of the state housing authority and tenants who dispute the circumstances lack any process to seek a review. Whether this will be the case in Queensland is unclear, since details of the policy are yet to be released.

TASWA note that not all complaints are substantiated before a strike notice is issued, many of which come from neighbours.  Additionally, Indigenous households are over represented in the resulting evictions.

Where do evicted tenants go?
Over the last few months, tenant advocates in Queensland have reported more vigour by the Department of Housing in seeking the termination of public housing tenancies where there are relatively minor breaches.  Anecdotally, it appears the Department of Housing has instigated a no tolerance policy for even relatively minor breaches of tenancy agreements, including rent arrears.

Tenants report that the Department is explicitly seeking a termination from the tribunal.  An alternative option would be to seek specific performance orders such as rent arrears repalyment plans by tribunal order.

Given the needs based targeting, if evicted, social housing tenants find it very difficult to find appropriate housing to move to.  TASWA in their report note that most households evicted under the DBMP are transferred to another social housing property or become homeless.

It is highly likely the same outcomes occur for Queensland tenants.  Unless otherwise excluded, being homeless is a criterion to identify an applicant in the highest level of need.

A key concern about evicting people in these circumstances is the resulting churn.  As also noted by TASWA, the eviction often exacerbates any behavioural issues which might have led to the eviction but if not, it does not address it.

Finally, when the details of this policy are released, who will the government seek views from regarding the interests of tenants?  The voice and interests of tenants are currently silenced as there is no body funded to purely identify the concerns and interest of tenants in these types of debates.

In the current system of highly targeted housing provision, social housing is the tenure of last resort for many households.  To be evicted from it has dire consequences for the household as well as being costly for them, housing providers, support workers, the tenancy tribunal and society generally.

There are no simple answers to responding to behavioural issues in social housing households or indeed any tenure type.  It seems clear though that tenancy law and anti-social behaviour policies aimed at evicting on the basis of certain behaviours are blunt instruments in finding long term solutions.

The monies required to administer these types of systems may be better directed at implementing programs to help households sustain their housing.

You can find the TASWA report at
http://www.taswa.org/policy/pdf/2011-dbsh-0800-policy.pdf