Gold Coast City Council endorses fining people sleeping rough
Rough sleepers in south-east Queensland have been dealt another blow with a third local government adopting a hardline stance on homelessness.
Gold Coast City Council on Tuesday voted to abandon its welfare-first approach towards people sleeping rough in public places, instead adopting a compliance-led strategy.
It means people who have set up tents in parks and other council-run areas could be fined, and their belongings confiscated if they refuse to pack up and leave within a given time.
Brisbane City Council and Moreton Bay Regional Council have recently adopted similar strategies.
Before the Gold Coast's policy change was adopted Tuesday morning, councillors pushed for two amendments.
The first ensures that the council continues to work with services including the Gold Coast Homelessness Network, renewing their commitment to house and support people dealing with homelessness.
The second makes it a requirement for the council to give "appropriate training" to frontline staff who speak with rough sleepers and issue compliance notices.
"It's a complicated scenario, but I think we're taking a step in the right direction," Mayor Tom Tate said.
Chair of the Gold Coast Homelessness Network Maria Leebeek welcomed the council's amendments.
"I'm happy that council wants to keep working with us and I look forward to continuing to support people who need our help," Ms Leebeek said.
Speaking before the policy was adopted, Queensland's peak body for housing and homelessness, Q-Shelter, said a third council in south-east Queensland issuing move-on orders was concerning.
"If people are forced to move on, they just move somewhere else," Q-Shelter chief executive Fiona Caniglia said.
"In a region like south-east Queensland, people just walk or travel in some other way, on a bus or whatever it is, to find a location where they can lodge temporarily in the hope that their circumstances change."
She said without more social and affordable housing right across Queensland's south-east, the issue of homelessness would not go away.
"There still aren't enough homes in the market to see people move into a permanent housing solution," she said.
"We know that the problem moves around and what might seem like a solution in one area becomes a problem somewhere else."
Cr Tate conceded homelessness was a complex issue and that council staff lacked the legislative power to move people on from public places.
"We'll use what's in our power to get them to move on and fining is one of those things that we can do," he said.
Queensland Police Service (QPS) said it would not enforce move-on directions issued to rough sleepers by the City of Gold Coast.
But QPS said it would support council officers where necessary, particularly if there are safety concerns for officers, rough sleepers or the public.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
Victorian build-to-rent landlords dodge new minimum lease terms
The Victorian government has quietly backed away from a plan to set minimum 12-month lease terms for thousands of Melbourne rentals. A proposed change to the Land Tax Act 2005 would have removed a deduction offered to build-to-rent operators from January 1 next year, unless they set the minimum lease term. Industry groups challenged the plan, citing research showing that between 10 and 30 per cent of tenants signing on for leases in the city's tenants-only complexes had specifically sought shorter terms. They also warned removing the tax benefit could have impacted attracting much needed development to build more rental homes across Melbourne. The city is currently Australia's capital for build-to-rent apartments, which effectively replace mum and dad investor landlords with corporate groups and super funds. Earlier this week the Victorian government acknowledged 1000 build-to-rent apartments had been built in the 2023-2024 financial year, with a further 18,200 under construction. The changes requiring the minimum term were removed from the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2025 just prior to its passage into parliament late this week. In 2020 the Victorian government created a tax benefits program for build-to-rent projects that has helped it to become the nation's top destination for developers planning such builds. It is understood the decision to remove the minimum terms requirement is subject to further discussion with the property industry. Property Council of Australia Victorian executive director Cath Evans said the change was vital to accommodate a wide range of renters including couples separating, people working interstate for short periods, families completing home renovations who needed the flexibility of shorter leases. 'So we were very pleased to see the government took our advice and has amended the policy as it went through,' Ms Evans said. She added that with the change maintaining stability for the build-to-rent sector, it was hoped more operators would be willing to undertake developments in the space and help boost the supply of new homes for tenants in Melbourne. 'There is a significant need to grow the BTR sector further as part of our broader need to deliver more homes for Victorians,' Ms Evans said. 'A more competitive property taxation regime is critical across all parts of the housing market to keep investment flowing and delivering the homes our communities urgently need.' Build-to-rent projects typically cater for Melbourne's higher-priced rental market, with many operators charging more than $800 a week for two-bedroom residences, but offering significant levels of luxury ranging from pools and gyms to podcasting and work-from home spaces around the complexes. With operators typically seeking to engage tenants long term, leases of up to three years are not uncommon where would-be residents are seeking security. Traditional residential tenancies do not currently have minimum lease terms, with most set at one year before rolling over to a month-by-month arrangement — or being renewed for another 12 months. Tenants Victoria chief executive Jennifer Beveridge said they would be speaking with the government further about creating more stability and security for tenants. 'The government have said they want to consult more with renters, and we'll be calling for more availability of longer term options,' Ms Beveridge said. 'Build-to-rent properties are built for the express purpose of remaining rental homes. We should take this opportunity to give people real security to stay there and make homes in them.'
News.com.au
3 hours ago
- News.com.au
‘Should not be punished': Queensland decries GST carve up
Cash-strapped state governments are looking west with envy as Western Australia pulls in its large slice of the GST carve up despite the healthiest books in the country. Resource-rich WA posted a $2.5bn operating surplus on Thursday – it's seventh budget surplus in a row. From Friday it is set to receive its share of the GST pool of 75 cents in the dollar, despite its strong revenue stream from its resources sector. State premiers and treasurers have been agitating for changes to the GST distribution, since the final figures were announced in March, and ahead of the funds formally being dished out on Friday. WA is still enjoying the windfalls of a 2018 GST deal struck under previous Coalition government by then-treasurer Scott Morrison and backed in by the Albanese government, where WA is guaranteed 75 cents of every dollar paid in GST. Without this benchmark, WA would have received as little as 18 cents back. The WA Premier and Treasurer credited their economic management for this week's operating surplus and healthy debt forecasts. Iron ore prices are hovering at $US95 while the state government has done its forecasting with an expectation of $US72 a tonne. But every state and territory except WA has been posting deficits since the 75 cent distribution reforms in 2018. The Queensland Treasurer feels short-changed, as strong coal royalties pad the state coffers. Victoria and NSW's slices of the GST pie are set to expand while Queensland's portion gets a trim. 'This money belongs to Queenslanders and we should not be punished because of our support for industries that underpin our national wealth,' state Treasurer David Janetzki said. The impending Queensland state budget, to be delivered on Tuesday, will show the effects of a dip in coal prices after an $8.8bn royalties windfall during the past four years. Despite the Sunshine State's royalty take coming down, Queensland's GST payout this year falls by $1.1bn to $16.5bn. In a speech to the National Press Club on Wednesday, federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers, who has historically opposed raising the GST rate, left the door slightly open to raising it from 10 per cent – the amount the excise has remained for the past 25 years. 'I've, for a decade or more, had a view about the GST,' he told The Conversation. 'I repeated that view at the Press Club because I thought that was the honest thing to do, but what I'm going to genuinely try and do, whether it's in this policy area or in other policy areas, is to not limit what people might bring to the table.' This year, Queensland is the only state or territory getting less than previous years, while every other jurisdiction is getting more. Victoria is set to become a net-recipient of the GST pool for the first time as well. 'It used to be the case that our friends in Victoria would help us shoulder the burden in supporting all the other states,' NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey said last month. 'Victoria is now a recipient state, to quite a large degree, $1.07 (per dollar taxed) is what they're getting. 'I'm going to continue to speak out, particularly about the fact that NSW is now carrying the federation when it comes to GST distribution.' The Northern Territory receives $5.15 for every dollar it contributes, far and away the largest return. Despite having the second largest population, Victoria receives the largest portion of the total pool, getting 27.5 per cent; with a $3.6bn year-on-year increase this time around.
SBS Australia
3 hours ago
- SBS Australia
Australia's social media ban is approaching, but questions remain over whether it will work
April Willis says young people need a seat at the table for figuring out how to implement the teen social media ban. Source: SBS News / Ash Minchin Like many, April Willis has been using social media since her early teens. As she grew up on the platforms, she says she didn't immediately understand the impact it was having on her. She says that in hindsight, though, she can see that a lot of her "behaviours" and "the content and interactions" she had on social media platforms were "definitely not great" for her mental health. But the now 22-year-old ReachOut youth advocate says she doesn't think a ban would have stopped her. "I think the hard truth is that a lot of us are thinking, 'I would've found a way around it', as I'm sure many young people will." Whether she actually would have is one of the many questions experts are wondering six months out from the implementation of Australia's social media ban for those under the age of 16. And as of 11 December this year, social media companies will be required to take "reasonable steps" to prevent Australian children and teenagers under 16 from using their platforms. A government-commissioned trial into the potential technologies used to assess the ages of users presented their preliminary findings on Friday. Their key finding was that "age assurance can be done in Australia and can be private, robust and effective". "The preliminary findings indicate that there are no significant technological barriers preventing the deployment of effective age assurance systems in Australia," project director Tony Allen said in a statement. "These solutions are technically feasible, can be integrated flexibly into existing services, and can support the safety and rights of children online." With details about the accuracy of the technologies tested left for later release, experts are wary of the trial's initial claim. Daniel Angus is a professor of digital communication at the Queensland University of Technology and the director of its Digital Media Research Centre. "One of the key concerns that we have is how the industry often will inflate their accuracy and the utility of these approaches when we know that there are still significant issues when it comes to both gender and also racial biases, but also the general lack of efficacy of these approaches," he said. According to the Department of Communications, a government-commissioned report from the Social Research Centre found nearly nine in 10 adults were supportive of age assurance measures. Only two of those 10 had heard of at least one potential method to check a person's age online. 'This research shows Australians widely support our world-leading age restrictions on social media for under 16s and have strong expectations of platforms when it comes to data protection and security," Communications Minister Anika Wells said in a statement. Angus says the general public has not been adequately informed about the likely impacts of these technologies. "I think Australians are in for a very rude shock when this actually perhaps, gets implemented, and they all of a sudden are being forced to hand over [their] data to access services that they've freely been able to access up to this point," he said. "It's absolutely everything you would expect to find in the midst of a moral panic where people have been sucked along with this idea that, 'Yeah, this thing is really, really bad and we need to prevent it,' but have not stopped to think critically about this, and then not been properly informed about the fullness of that risk." John Pane, chair of digital rights organisation Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), is a member of the stakeholder advisory board for the trial. He says the EFA has "concerns about the rollout of this technology because it's not simply about restricting access to social media platforms for children 15 and under". "It requires all adults who participate in the online environment, who wish to access social media platforms to either have their age authenticated or establish their identity as a means of, or part of that age authentication. "So from our perspective, it's the Trojan horse for getting people to get used to providing more and more credentials online." Amid these concerns, some remain supportive of the ban, including Kirra Pendergast, another member of the stakeholder advisory board. "Initially, I was only against the ban purely because of the technical workarounds that are possible for some kids who are more technical than others," she said. "But after having lots of conversations with parents in particular, it became abundantly clear that the ban was making parents have a conversation that we've needed to have for a very, very long time." Pendergast is the founder of Safe on Social, an online safety advisory group for schools and businesses, and chief digital safety strategist at the global Ctrl+Shft Coalition. "I get contacted almost every single day by parents that are struggling with this," the cybersecurity expert said. "They don't know how to say no." Pendergast said parents and educators would have "a lot more time to get it right". "It's like all aspects of technical security, cybersecurity, and cyber safety. It's never ever going to be 100 per cent. This is never going to be the silver bullet. "It's a really, really good start because, again, it sparked all of the conversations that we needed to have at every level of society." Professor Tama Leaver, an internet studies academic at Curtin University and the chief investigator in the ARC Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child, says the ban responds to a "very real fear that parents have that social media is an unknown space". "If this is world-leading, we need to be quite clear on what the legislation is actually doing." He warned that the implementation of the policy may not address all the issues that have been discussed. "Some harms, for example, such as cyberbullying, were very much touted as one of the big problems to be solved," he said. "There is nothing in this legislation that addresses cyberbullying meaningfully at all. "This at best addresses algorithmic amplification … of young people's experiences of social media, but … we expect from what's been said already that most messaging apps are exempt from this legislation. "So, the spaces where we imagine cyberbullying is most likely to happen are not being touched by this legislation at all." Leaver was a signatory on an open letter from more than 140 academics and civil society organisations against the ban. "If the rest of the world is watching Australia and hoping that this might be a blueprint, we're going to have an awful lot of work to do in the next few months to actually have a blueprint to practically do this rather than simply aspire to giving parents some reassurance," he said.
