The City of Moreton Bay is currently facing a legal process at the Supreme Court of Queensland over alleged breaches of human rights against homeless residents. The high-stakes hearing began yesterday in the Brisbane Supreme Court, continuing through Tuesday, with a reserved decision expected later.

The legal action centers on the Council’s compliance measures following the repeal of a framework that previously allowed some homeless individuals to camp on council land.

Background to the Dispute

Prior to February 2025, the Council operated the Persons Experiencing Homelessness Framework, promulgated under the Local Government Act 2009 (Qld), which permitted individuals in the applicants’ situation to camp on council property. However, after receiving complaints from residents, the council announced on February 26, 2025, that it would repeal the camping framework, with the repeal taking effect on March 12, 2025.

At the time the framework was repealed, almost all applicants were homeless and sleeping out in the open, albeit in tents, on public land controlled by the council, including at Eddie Hyland Park.

In early April 2025, council officers attended Eddie Hyland Park to issue decision and compliance notices requiring the applicants to stop camping and storing goods there. The applicants allege these notices provided very short timeframes. Council employees returned a few weeks later, on April 24, 2025, with vehicles described as either bulldozers or excavators, and disposed of several of the applicants’ belongings.

When some applicants moved to Goodfellows Road around May 10, 2025, and continued sleeping rough, council employees later attended that location on June 18, 2025. One employee gave out a map confirming the area was council land, and another employee told applicants they had two weeks to move. One applicant alleges they were told that previous documentation from Eddie Hyland Park still applied, meaning new documentation did not need to be issued.

Injunction Secured

The matter escalated, and in July 2025, consent orders were made restraining the council from taking further action against the applicants under certain conditions, while ordering that the current proceeding be heard alongside a related matter.

In August, Basic Rights Queensland, representing 11 Kallangur residents experiencing homelessness, secured an injunction that restricted the council from acting on previous notices or moving the applicants on until a full hearing in December.

The Honourable Justice Smith found that the applicants had established a prima facie case—meaning sufficient initial evidence supports the claim—that the Council had not acted compatibly with or properly considered human rights. Justice Smith questioned the lawfulness of the council’s recent compliance action aimed at removing the residents from their camp, ultimately finding that the balance of convenience favoured the applicants being granted the injunction.

Following the August decision, Sam Tracy for Basic Rights Queensland stated, “Today’s decision confirmed what the Queensland Human Rights Act makes clear: human rights apply to everyone, including people who are homeless”. Tracy added that their clients “can sleep a little more easily tonight knowing they won’t be forced from their shelter, or have machinery destroy their tents while their case is being heard”.

Council’s Position

The City of Moreton Bay asserts that public spaces are not suitable for habitation, and individuals sleeping rough deserve secure accommodation. The Council is focused on challenging the lawfulness and validity of the compliance notices issued by its officers for unauthorized use of public space, and the applicants are also claiming that the disposal of items breached their human rights.

The Council noted that the applicants are not challenging the lawful making of the Camping on Public Land local law. They emphasize that the case before the Supreme Court is primarily a legal argument about whether local government can enforce the local laws they make, rather than the validity of the laws themselves.

In a statement, the Council argued that local government is neither responsible nor funded for the provision of public housing or shelters.

“To be very clear, there are no winners today and no one will achieve a housing solution based on the outcome of this case, yet significant public resources have been consumed by this matter,” the Council stated.

The Council contends that public spaces are intended for the entire community and that the actions of Council Officers, supported by the Queensland Police Service, are intended to return these spaces for all users. The outcome of this case could potentially call into question the ability of all 77 local governments in Queensland to enforce their local laws. The Council also confirmed that it has not issued any fines to people experiencing homelessness.