Evictions of homeless campers by City of Moreton Bay violated human rights, Supreme Court rules   


March 6 2026
ABC News

The eviction of homeless campers from parks in the City of Moreton Bay council violated human rights, the Supreme Court ruled. (ABC Radio Brisbane: Kenji Sato)

In short:
The Supreme Court has ruled the City of Moreton Bay council violated the human rights of homeless campers when it evicted them from public parks last year.   

Justice Paul Smith ruled the council had made several "errors of law" including disposing of homeless tents and possessions without consent.

What's next?
The parties will return to the Supreme Court in three weeks to discuss what will happen moving forward.


The City of Moreton Bay council violated the human rights of evicted homeless campers, a Supreme Court has ruled today.

The south-east Queensland council fronted court this morning to defend a legal challenge mounted by Basic Rights Queensland on behalf of evicted homeless campers.

It comes after the council made all homeless camping illegal in March last year, prompting a series of evictions throughout 2025.

Justice Paul Smith ruled the council had made several "errors of law", including disposing of homeless tents and other possessions without their consent.   

The council had previously argued the homeless people tacitly consented to having their property seized and destroyed.

Workers dismantle a tent
Justice Smith found Moreton Bay Council did not give the campers a reasonable period of time before the evictions began. (ABC Radio Brisbane: Kenji Sato)

Justice Smith found the council did not give the homeless people a reasonable period of time before enforcing their evictions, and said the number of homeless people "far exceeded" the social housing capacity in the region.

"The applicants are homeless people because they could not afford to pay rent for suitable accommodation, and they were sleeping rough in public parks in the Moreton Bay area," Justice Smith said.   

"If people are moved on without alternative accommodation, the outcome is likely further hardship and the psychological toll can be severe."
However, Justice Smith did not grant a request for a permanent injunction that would have prevented the council from evicting more people in the future.

It means the council will be able to continue their evictions in future, provided they do so within the bounds of the law.

The Queensland Human Rights Commission joined the case to argue that the council had violated the human rights of the evicted homeless campers.

The parties are due to return to the Supreme Court in three weeks to discuss what this will mean for both parties moving forward.

Financial compensation sought
Basic Rights Queensland director Sam Tracy said he would demand for the council to pay financial compensation to the homeless people whose belongings were destroyed.

Speaking outside the court, Mr Tracy said this case would set an important precedent in how councils treat homeless populations in future.

"Today is a victory for Queensland's most vulnerable people," he said.

A man with a laptop tucked under his arm
Sam Tracy says he will seek financial compensation for homeless people whose belongings were destroyed. (ABC Radio Brisbane: Kenji Sato)

"This is accountability for local councils to oblige with the Human Rights Act, and the court found that Moreton Bay council did not do that."

Evicted camper Debbie Bobeldyk said this was a vindicating moment for Moreton Bay's evicted homeless population.

Ms Bobeldyk said she had always maintained that homeless people had not consented to having their belongings destroyed by the council.

A woman and a dog
Debbie Bobeldyk says she feels as though she has been stripped of her dignity.

"Our daughter's ashes have gone missing and we still can't find them," Ms Bobeldyk said.   

"It was her birthday last month and to not have the ashes there — it hurt."
Beau Heywood, founder of the charity Nourish Street, said he hoped this verdict would mean homeless people would be treated with greater compassion.

Mr Heywood, who initiated the court case with Basic Rights Queensland, said other councils should be on notice.

"I've seen some absolutely shocking behaviour from councils, and I really hope this puts them in their place and puts a stop to it," Mr Heywood said.

"These are people I see everyday and I see their struggles, and it's really good to know that there'll be more human rights considered when it comes to moving people on."

A man next to a tent
Beau Haywood said the decision should put councils on notice.

Moreton Bay chief executive Scott Waters said councils across Australia were not funded or resourced to provide public housing or shelters.

"Sadly, today's determination does not grant homes for people sleeping rough, yet significant ratepayer resources have been consumed by this matter," Mr Waters said.

"City of Moreton Bay considers the Human Rights Act 2019 (Queensland) is not a licence to do what is otherwise unlawful.

"It should not prevent the enforcement of council local laws made for the safety, health and amenity of the community."

whiteknight wrote Yesterday at 12:38pm:




A PRACTICAL SOLUTION......
The Australian government could consult with the ATO.....
[.....AND, we have Albo currently as PM!!]

Consult with the ATO in order to identify the 'lucky Australian' [i.e. being 'fortunate', for being so, so wealthy] who was identified as having in his/her possession, 'the most' in liquid assets, last TAX year.
[amendment; the assets of ALL FAMILY TRUSTS should also be subject to this national 'plan'
....to alleviate poverty and homelessness.]

And the Australian government should declare, that for the sake of the welfare, of the very poorest people in this nation,
that.....only 95% of the assets of this richest individual [or from a FAMILY TRUST] would be seized [by the Australian government]
[leaving that 'lucky Australian' with still 5% of his/her liquid assets].
e.g.
If as the wealthiest Australian, this individual had liquid assets amounting to $A10 billion,
after being robbed by the Australian government,
relieved of most of his/her disgusting and repulsive, mountain of wealth [for the sake of our nation],
they would still be 'sitting pretty', still holding $A50,000,000.00


The confiscation of this vast and repulsive amount of wealth [which had been held by a lone individual [or FAMILY TRUST], would be explained [and justified] to our fellow Australians,
as being done, in order to fund the immediate alleviation of the vast amounts of poverty and homelessness in Australia.


THEN;
Repeat the above, each successive year, until poverty and homelessness in Australia, has been 'defeated'.

That would be fair.

Wouldn't it ! ?

i.e.
This would only be stealing liquid assets from a wealthy person [each TAX Year], and from individual persons who have more assets ['things'] than they could ever hope to consume in their life time.


And after a decade or two, poverty and homelessness in Australia 'would be a thing of the past'.

Right ?

And Karl Marx, no doubt, would be trying to dance of joy, 6 feet down, within his coffin.

Right ?

And Albo would become the Prime Minister who was able to declare a promise,
[that soon] "no Australian would live in poverty."   [.....or be homeless.]

Come on Albo......you know that YOU could achieve this !

Your government could call it.....'Albo's UTOPIA PLAN for Australia'.


.


Another addendum;
But Jesus would not approve of such a confiscation.....of other peoples wealth.

.

The Ten Commandments......
Exodus 20:
15  [#08] Thou shalt not steal.

17  [#10] Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house,
thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife,
nor his manservant, nor his maidservant,
nor his ox,
nor his ass,
nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

thegreatdivide wrote Yesterday at 4:24pm:


"Join us if you are a committed individual, union, social justice movement, community organisation, work in social services and anyone who knows that we deserve better. "

Ah the meritless "we deserve", we don't want to work for it - we deserve.

Public Money is not the same as private money. 

The social contract connection – the bargain …. that by exercising civility and according basic things as rights to individuals – a society benefits in many ways.

Lest we become the cosseted Hunger Games Capital Cities of the beneficiaries of the chicaneries of modern 'western' society – that society that has lost its way in the wilds of progressives smoothing the way to their own financial greatness and creating mass poverty along the way .... the once loathed by the 'left' elitism to its very max ….. We, the People … must raise our hands and our heads and take down the real oppressors..

The True Nazis are those of the 'left' these days – the 'woke', the 'progressives', the evangelical leftists who promote any and every idea that opposes the simple reality that they live …. and sadly prosper … within a society they are trying to destroy … and in doing so – are destroying the very people who created and built and maintain that society.

Homeless people with no money will become criminals.......... society at large will suffer
except the cossetted enclaves of those who have actually designer built this catastrophe for the many...

“Social & Economic Rights: Right to work, fair wages, rest/leisure, education, and an adequate standard of living (food, clothing, housing, medical care).”

Can anyone argue that WE, as a Nation and not as a People – are failing our future generations here?

Give the people back their rights, you Fascist scum.

Yadda wrote Yesterday at 9:31pm:


Nice to know 'God' forgives murderers and adulterers, while Conservatives preach 'tough on crime".... but hang on, the penalty for adulterers according to the OT is stoning to death, with no interrogation re faith in god.   

Quote:



Why?

Oz has the resources to ensure provision of fundamentlai rights as listed.

What's your problem?


Quote:


Only because you are deceived by mainstream "scarcity" economists. There is no scarcity of essentials, in resource rich Oz.

Let's see what Graps has to say....; like you (a fake Christian who sarcastically suggested taxing the rich to ensure provision of public housing for low income groups),  he begins well with the idea of a "social contract"...but I expect he will say the contract is broken if the individual fails to find and maintain his employment, without looking at the systemic CAUSES of involuntary unemployment.

Let's see.

thegreatdivide wrote Today at 12:29pm:



Not the millennials who eschew marriage and procreation because... Climate change.