City of Moreton Bay Council defends bulldozing of Kallangur homeless camp in Supreme Court
A battle over the destruction of a homeless camp has intensified, with lawyers claiming the campers’ human rights were breached when tents were bulldozed.
A Queensland council is facing a Supreme Court challenge after destroying tents and belongings of homeless people.
The case, which began Monday, centres on whether the City of Moreton Bay Council violated human rights, including the right to a home and privacy, the right to property, and protection from cruel or degrading treatment.
The council has warned the outcome could affect how all 77 local governments in Queensland enforce their local laws.
The dispute follows an April incident when council officers cleared a Eddie Hyland Park camp after issuing compliance notices.
Campers said they were given less than an hour to collect their belongings before the site was bulldozed.
Several of those affected then moved to a council bush reserve in Kallangur.
The council subsequently ordered the removal of the Kallangur campers but paused demolition after lawyers for 11 of the campers secured an injunction pending the hearing.
Representing the applicants, barrister Hamish Clift from Basic Rights Queensland said the residents did not freely consent to council disposing of their possessions.
He told the court that council officers had pressured people and allowed less than an hour to retrieve their belongings.
“All Queenslanders have human rights … those who are homeless have human rights under the act,” Mr Clift said.
Human Rights Commission barrister Lachlan Grant told the court the council should have considered the range of actions available to them and taken a different approach.
King’s Counsel Scott McLeod, representing the council, argued that the campers had no legal right to stay on the reserve.
“It’s illegal to camp or stay ... if not authorised,” Mr McLeod told the court.
He said that the applicants “were already prohibited from camping or putting possessions on public land”.
Mr McLeod added the council had given the residents the opportunity to remove their belongings before the site was bulldozed, meaning there was “no human rights violation”.
“There’s simply no evidence at all in terms of health impacts the applicants have endured because of being issued the notice,” Mr McLeod said, arguing that the notices did not deprive anyone of life.
On claims that the council’s actions amounted to degrading treatment, he said the Human Rights Act requires conduct of “severe severity”, which he argued had not been reached.
“There was nothing degrading or cruel to issue the said notices … camping itself is illegal to begin with,” he said.
The court was told that some residents were offered housing when the notices were issued, while others received offers later.
A number of the campers had been living on the land for months.
Justice Paul Smith questioned whether that time could make the site a person’s home under the Human Rights Act, noting one woman had been there since September 2024.
Mr McLeod said that was not long enough.
Mr Grant from the Humans Rights Commission raised the question of “how much time engages human rights considerations”.
He said that even when “enforcing the law lawfully,” authorities must still consider their human rights obligations.
Justice Smith has reserved judgment until a later date.
Sam Tracy, director at Basic Rights Queensland, whose team is assisting the case alongside other pro bono lawyers, says “destroying the ‘homes’ of the homeless can be devastating”, which he hopes is where the Human Rights Act steps in.
“This is a David and Goliath battle. It is the government’s response to the cost of living crisis that is on trial too,” he said.
“We are confident the court will make a decision that assists councils across Queensland to move towards best practise considerations of human rights for some of our most vulnerable.
“The QHRC speak of the Human Rights Act building a culture of human rights in Queensland. Whatever the outcome in this case, that spotlight is on councils, it’s on all Queensland decision makers to build that culture.”
The City of Moreton Bay Council said public spaces were not fit for habitation and that people sleeping rough deserved secure accommodation.
A spokesperson said the council worked with state and federal governments and community groups to support vulnerable residents, but that local government was not funded to provide public housing or shelters.
They said the case was a legal argument over whether councils could enforce local laws, and warned the outcome could affect councils across Queensland.
“City of Moreton Bay has not issued any fines to people experiencing homelessness,” the spokesperson said.
“Council makes and delivers local laws for the entire community equally.”
The council said it was working with frontline services, housing providers, community groups, and all levels of government to provide practical support, including crisis and transitional housing and wraparound services.
Council initiatives include a public space liaison officer program, the $3.7m peninsula support hub, a “sleep bus”, land for social and affordable housing, fee waivers for housing development, and participation in inter-agency partnerships and government advisory councils.
The council said it had also advocated for a youth foyer, increased funding for homelessness outreach, and specialised health and housing programs for vulnerable residents.
Originally published as City of Moreton Bay Council defends bulldozing of Kallangur homeless camp in Supreme Court
