How are human rights relevant in your work?
As Queensland public service employees, we have to think about the impact of our work decisions and actions on the human rights of people in Queensland.
This hypothetical case study about a tenancy decision shows how human rights apply in an everyday public service work situation.
Dealing with disruptive public housing tenants.
Shanna works for the Department of Housing and Public Works. She looks after public housing tenants through a Housing Service Centre. People who live in public housing have to follow a “Fair expectations of behaviour” policy. Sometimes Shanna gives tenants warnings about disruptive behaviour. For example, behaviour that:
- disturbs neighbours;
- threatens the safety of tenants, household members, or neighbours;
- or damages property.
Shanna has to decide whether to end a tenancy for a single mum and her two children. They've been living in their public housing property for 5 years. Over the last year, they've had 4 warnings for disruptive behaviour. One of the children has threatened the safety of neighbours and his family, and damaged public housing property.
How are human rights relevant in this situation?
Shanna has to think about the internal policies and processes she should follow to make this decision, and she also has to think about human rights.
Shanna needs to know what law, if any, allows her to make this decision to limit a human right. The processes that Shanna follows to manage tenancies come from the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008, the law which allows her to make tenancy decisions.
Shanna also needs to make sure her decision is fair and for good reason to comply with the Human Rights Act. The Act shows us how to do that.
Considering human rights in decision making
[Text in footer bar: Right to privacy and reputation]
The tenants and their neighbours have the right not to have their family and home interfered with. If Shanna evicts the tenant, this will interfere with their home. They will lose their property and may have trouble finding another place to live.
[Text in footer bar: Right to protection of families and children]
The children in the family have the right to be protected, as does the family unit. If Shanna evicts the tenants, this could affect the stability of their family, especially if they then face housing stress. Eviction might not be in the best interests of the children. If Shanna decides not to evict the tenants, this could affect the right to protection of families and children for others who live nearby.
[Text in footer bar: Right to life Ι Right to liberty and security of person]
If the tenant's behaviour risks others' safety, Shanna needs to take appropriate steps to protect people from physical harm and to protect life.
Is the purpose being achieved?
The purpose of limiting the tenants' right in this situation might be to protect the safety and security of people living nearby, prevent damage to public housing property, protect the peace in the neighbourhood, and protect the rights of people living nearby.
Shanna should understand how evicting the tenants will achieve her purpose. For example, if evicting the tenants won't lead to the safety and security of others, she won't be able to show that limiting the tenants' rights is fair, because it doesn't achieve her purpose.
Are there alternatives available?
Shanna should consider if there are alternatives that limit rights less. She could consider:
- issuing another warning
- offering the tenant support services to help them address the behaviour
- working with the tenant to find them another property that's more suitable for their needs.
Shanna should also consider how serious the risk to neighbours and public housing property is. Is the risk serious enough to outweigh limiting the tenants' rights, which will happen if she evicts them?
Is the decision fair and reasonable?