“The audio and visual recordings reveal disturbing and deeply concerning aspects of the Housing ACT appeal process – it appears the panel resolved, prior to the hearing, that the decision to evict Yvette van Loo should stand,” writes JON STANHOPE.

The ACT Supreme Court has finally released its judgment in the matter brought by three elderly and courageous Canberra women, each of whom had been issued with eviction notices by the ACT government under its now infamous, money-grubbing public housing cleansing program. 

I should acknowledge that it was me who first approached Ken Cush and Associates, the legal firm that represented the three plaintiffs, with a request that they take up the case.

My initial involvement arose when I was contacted by one of the more than 300 public housing residents who had received an eviction notice from Housing ACT with a request that I assist her in preparing a case for the withdrawal of the Housing ACT eviction notice. 

The thrust of the case was that the ACT government had, in seeking to evict the plaintiffs, breached their human rights.

The judge agreed and found that the ACT government had clearly breached the human rights of the three plaintiffs. 

A serious aspect of this matter is the nature of the appeals process that the ACT government instituted following the initial public outrage that greeted the announcement that the government was planning the program of evictions.

Housing ACT introduced a formal appeals process that enabled those the subject of eviction to lodge an appeal. 

One of the plaintiffs, Yvette van Loo (a widow), lodged such an appeal and asked me to accompany her to the hearing to, in effect, provide her with moral support.

I was happy to do so and we reported to the offices of Housing ACT where the appeal was heard, I understand, by four senior members of Housing ACT and two community representatives, who were introduced as senior members of community-based organisations. 

The appeal was held during the time of the covid epidemic and, not surprisingly, we were directed to a separate room, and the hearing was conducted via video link.

Unfortunately, the appeal was unsuccessful, which provided the catalyst for the initial approach to Ken Cush and Associates. 

An intriguing outcome of the engagement of the law firm is that they did what lawyers do and subpoenaed all documents and other relevant materials (eg, videos or recordings etcetera) related to the appellant and her eviction from her home. 

Among the materials provided, consistent with the subpoena, were audio and visual recordings relevant and related to the hearing by Housing ACT of the application by the evictee for the decision to evict her from her home to be reversed.

The audio and visual recordings duly released by the ACT government reveal disturbing and deeply concerning aspects of the appeal process. 

In short, it appears that the panel may have resolved, prior to the hearing, that the decision to evict Yvette van Loo should stand. 

Her lawyers described the situation to the court in the following terms: “Ms van Loo gives evidence about her experience with the program, and I just want to take your honour to paragraph 48, so after the events that your Honour has just seen depicted on the video, she receives the letter and she felt insulted that they showed such contempt for her. 

“So, we put it in our submissions that there was pre-judgment of the issue, but what then followed was a sham consultation and the expression of the right not to be subjected to degrading treatment. 

“Now we say that its open to your honour to find that the process was cynical, superficial and dismissive… 

“It was very much a, let’s just knock this over, make the decision. We will leave it the 14 days. Send her the letter. We know that’s what we’re going to do.

“So, your honour will see initially the defendants who convened to have a discussion and then the camera will pan to Ms van Loo and a support person. She doesn’t know what is going to happen.” 

(I was the support person, and I, too, did not know that that was what was going to happen). 

It would be appropriate, subject to the views of the plaintiffs, for the video referred to above to be made public.

Columnist Jon Stanhope was ACT chief minister from 2001 to 2011 and the only chief minister to have governed with a majority in the Assembly.