Victorian government pushes ahead with controversial housing tower redevelopment plan

In Melbourne, Australia, the Victorian government has moved forward with a significant scheme aimed at retiring or redeveloping 44 public housing towers by 2050. Initially announced by former Premier Daniel Andrews last year, the plan faced considerable opposition from residents, many of whom participated in a class action lawsuit against the proposed changes. On November 28, 2024, Premier Jacinta Allan and Minister for Housing Harriet Shing provided updates about the redevelopment process, including a visual representation of the first project in Carlton, which includes plans for larger and more efficient social homes that better accommodate families. The redevelopment aims to address the shortcomings of the aging 1960s properties that no longer meet modern living standards. The new housing structures will offer improved facilities, with some units featuring four or five bedrooms to cater to larger families. Energy efficiency is also a priority, as the government seeks to create homes that are not only more secure and modern but also environmentally friendly. Minister Shing emphasized the necessity of these changes for families and individuals with disabilities, arguing that current living conditions are inadequate. Despite the government's intentions to provide modernized living environments, critics argue that the approach taken is incompatible with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). IMCL CEO Elisa Buggy has voiced concerns over potential human rights violations, asserting that public housing residents deserve the right to live free from arbitrary disruption, and that large-scale demolitions during a housing crisis are particularly troubling. Buggy highlighted the psychological impact on over 10,000 residents who may be forced to leave their homes and the repercussions of the government's decisions on fundamental rights and security. As the plans progress, it appears that residents will have to wait until the following year for more clarity regarding the outcomes of their resistance and the government’s redevelopment initiative. Only a small fraction—five out of 489 affected households—decided against joining the collective action. As this story develops, the looming question remains: how will the government balance modernization with the rights and well-being of the current residents affected by such a massive overhaul of their living conditions?