Turning the homeless into criminals

Begging laws can land a person in jail and it is an offence to drink alcohol in the street. We must move on, writes Greg Barns

THE urgency which has finally crept into the homelessness crisis on the part of the City of Hobart and at least one MP, Speaker Sue Hickey, provides an opportunity for much-needed reform. Sadly, the Hodgman Government does not seem to be on board.

Last week, while the urgent need to deal with homelessness was front and centre of media and political debate, the Housing Minister Roger Jaensch was warning he might appeal a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court which was a significant victory for the human rights of state housing tenants.

The Hobart City Council appears to want to think outside the square on homelessness. If that is the case then perhaps we can begin a conversation, started in this column last week, which focuses on abolishing laws that criminalise the homeless.

As noted last week, we still operate as a society with laws fashioned in the 19th century when being homeless or living on the street was regarded as sinful and shameful. The hypocritical Victorians reeked of bourgeois pretence and manner.

The law was moulded to oppress and keep locked away the marginalised.

So here are some laws which have to be repealed if we are serious about dealing with homelessness in a way that accords respect and humanity.

The begging laws, which can land a person in jail for up to six months if breached, must go.

Here is what the current law says, “A person shall not in a public place beg or expose wounds or deformities, or place himself or herself or otherwise act so as to induce, or attempt to induce, the giving of money or other financial advantage, or instigate or incite another person to do any of those things.”

Leaving aside the Dickensian language, the idea that abject poverty and homelessness should mean being picked up by police merely for seeking a few dollars for a coffee is obscene.

Then there are the laws that make it an offence to consume alcohol in a street or even have an opened container of alcohol.

Once again this law discriminates against those forced to live on the streets, as do local government bylaws that prohibit people from sleeping in parks or other public places. To the credit of the Hobart City Council it now provides a defence of homelessness if a person is found camping in a public place.

We need to amend antidiscrimination laws and bail laws so that discrimination against a person because they are homeless is made unlawful.

Too many individuals in Tasmania are holed up in jail simply because courts will not give them bail in the absence of a home address.

But perhaps most importantly we need to view homelessness as a breach of fundamental rights.

People experiencing homelessness are not charity cases. They are human beings entitled to be able to enforce their rights.

As the Australian Human Rights Commission puts it; “Recognising that homelessness impacts on a person’s ability to enjoy basic rights and freedoms has important consequences for the way that our society perceives and treats homeless people.”

A human rights response to homelessness would involve all levels of government committing to and taking concrete and targeted legislative, policy and budgetary steps towards the full and immediate realisation of the human rights of homeless persons, the Commission argues.

Such an approach seems to be what is missing in the response of Mr Jaensch last week to a decision of the Supreme Court which took a human rights approach to the case of Greg Parsons, an intellectually impaired man who was told by Housing Tasmania to leave his home where he had lived since June 2007. Housing Tasmania sent Mr Parsons a cold letter which told him, “your residential tenancy agreement is due to expire on 27 June 2017. The residential tenancy agreement will not be extended or renewed”. As the Full Court noted, “No other reason was given to Mr Parsons as to why he had to leave his home, notwithstanding that his lease had similarly almost come to an end 14 times before, over a period of 10 years, and notwithstanding that compliance with the notice would have left him homeless.

Facing homelessness, Mr Parsons did not comply with

the notice” Housing Tasmania argued it did not have to give Mr Parsons any reason for terminating his lease. The Court found that Mr Parsons had been denied the right to have a say as to why he should not have to comply with the eviction notice.

One would have thought that Housing Tasmania and Mr Jaensch would ensure such an inhuman approach to a vulnerable tenant never happened again. But no, the Minister says he might spend taxpayer dollars on appealing the decision to the High Court. What does this say about those responsible for housing the vulnerable and marginalised people in Tasmania?

They appear driven by anything but compassion and human rights.