Queensland public housing tenants to be evicted after three warnings for serious behaviour in a year
Public housing tenants in Queensland who are issued three warnings for serious behaviour in a year could be evicted under a new government policy.
The new policy, which will come into effect in July, will also see tenants who are evicted for committing illegal offences banned from reapplying for two years.
Housing Minister Sam O'Connor said the new approach would allow housing officers to record warnings against tenancies and take action if the behaviour continued.
"It is all about making sure our tenants are as safe as they possibly can be and that the overwhelming majority who do the right thing are protected in their homes and in their communities that they love," he said.
He said officers would have the ability to apply discretion to tenants with complex needs, including disability, mental illness, and those experiencing domestic violence.
Karyn Walsh, chief executive of non-profit organisation Micah Projects, said she was disappointed in the new approach believing it would "not do anything to reduce homelessness".
"I understand the issues that social housing is facing, but I think there are other ways that we need to be addressing it because it disproportionately is going to affect the most vulnerable in our community," she said.
"There is a ripple effect if people aren't eligible for social housing with bans, and then there are other things they are not eligible for when they come to a homeless service."
Under the changes tenants who engage in severe or illegal activities, including assault, drug manufacturing or dangerous behaviour, will be exited immediately and banned from accessing social housing for two years.
Tenants who engage in serious behaviour, including deliberate and persistent damage and aggressive language to others, will be evicted from public housing on their third breach within a year and banned from accessing public housing for 12 months.
Under the changes no verbal warnings will be issued and after receiving a written warning tenants must commit to improving their conduct or they will face formal action to end their tenancy.
More than 12,000 social housing properties were damaged last financial year, according to the government, costing more than $20 million in repairs.
When asked what options were available to those who were evicted, Mr O'Connor told ABC Radio Brisbane there was "a range of products available that the department offers to support them to transition to another option".
"We have got 52,031 people on our wait list who are eligible for social housing and it is not acceptable to have people in the system who abuse that and who deliberately damage and cause significant amounts of destruction to our properties."
The government announced this week from July 1 it would conduct annual rent reviews to determine if social housing recipients were still within the income limit.
At a press conference on Tuesday, Mr O'Connor said changing the income caps for social housing tenants was not on the government's agenda.
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
‘Gold digger tests': The new way men are tricking women on dates
A growing number of people in the dating world are reporting a troubling new phenomenon known as 'gold digger tests' — deliberate situations where one person gauges the other's financial intentions by unexpectedly making them pay or setting traps to see if they're more interested in money than a genuine connection. Georgina*, 27, from Melbourne, recalls a bizarre experience on a recent date. 'I'd been on a few dates with a guy and things were going okay. He'd cover dinner, I'd grab drinks,' she tells 'But one evening, he invited me out for a casual frozen yoghurt date. When it came time to weigh the yoghurts, he rushed ahead to pay for his while I was still mid-chocolate drizzle. I was shocked, having to awkwardly weigh and pay for mine just moments later, while he hovered next to me. We ate in silence. He acted like nothing had happened and kept asking me out after that. 'He has a good job, so it was honestly so strange to me to do that over a $6 yoghurt.' Her experience is far from unique. Across social media and dating forums, more people are sharing similar stories. One 29-year-old woman detailed her unsettling encounter on Reddit. Set up by a mutual friend, she met a 31-year-old man at a cafe. 'It actually started really well,' she wrote. 'We had a lot in common, great conversation, and I was feeling positive. But when the $100 check arrived, the tone shifted.' She was prepared to split the bill, but was instead handed the entire amount and asked, 'Is it alright if you pay for this?' She said she was caught off guard but, unbothered by the amount, she agreed. 'Right after I paid, he grinned and said, 'Congratulations, you passed the test! You're not a gold digger,'' she recalled. When she probed him about this comment, he admitted he'd been burned before by an ex who expected him to foot every bill. Now, he 'tests' women to ensure they're not after his money. Christine Rafe, sex and relationship expert for Womanizer, sees this trend as symptomatic of broader cultural shifts. 'The rise of 'gold digger tests' reflects the growing gender divide and rhetoric on social media and 'alpha male podcasters' suggesting heterosexual women only want the 'top 10 per cent' of socially, financially and physically attractive men,' she explains. 'This baseless theory, popularised by Andrew Tate and his followers, encourages men to be suspicious of women's intentions, leading them to 'test' financial expectations by making women pay for dates or lying about their jobs to see if they stay interested. This is worsened by increasing rhetoric online and politically advocating a return to traditional gender roles, especially in modern heterosexual relationships.' Georgina believes dating app culture also plays a role. 'I'd estimate some men go on multiple dates a week with different women, and it adds up. The days of dating slowly and investing time in one person are almost gone. So even if a guy earns well, it's hundreds of dollars a week if he pays for every date,' she says. And with the cost of living rising, some men simply aren't willing to cover every bill. The Choosi Swipe Right Report supports this, and found Australians aged 18-49 spend an average of $158 per date, with men estimating $233 and women $101. Nearly three in four (74 per cent) agree dating has become much more expensive than before. Despite these pressures, Ms Rafe warns that financial 'tests' are manipulative and damage trust. 'These behaviours encourage lying and dominance from the very start,' she says. 'When one person sets a trap to see if the other will 'pass', they establish distrust that undermines emotional intimacy and connection.' She emphasises that healthy relationships are built on open communication, which these 'tests' can undermine. There are healthier ways to navigate financial expectations, she explains, such as asking about hobbies, lifestyle, travel plans, values, and how each person prefers to handle bills and shared expenses. 'These conversations give a clearer picture of someone's expectations without manipulation or testing,' she notes. She also encourages self-reflection. 'If you have concerns about expectations or motives in dating, explore them through therapy or journalling to understand where your views on status and money come from, and what a healthy relationship looks like,' she advises. 'When discussing these topics, share your vulnerabilities rather than projecting insecurities onto your date.' If you find yourself 'testing' someone's motives before even meeting, she says you should reflect on whether this suspicion comes from your own experience or unreliable sources. And if you've been on a date where someone set a dishonest 'test' or 'trap', see it as a sign of their emotional immaturity and inability to communicate openly — and move on.
News.com.au
5 hours ago
- News.com.au
High school ‘Tradwife' debate topic divides
A hot button topic put forward for Year 9 students to discuss during a statewide debate competition has caused a stir online. Debating SA, a non-profit organisation that runs debating competitions in South Australia, revealed its latest topics ahead of next week's debates. However, it was the topic for round three — 'The 'Trad Wife' movement is good for women' — that has raised eyebrows and sparked fierce discussion. The 'Trad Wife' movement has been popularised by the likes of influencer Hannah Neeleman, also known as Ballerina Farm, who has more than 10 million followers on Instagram, and Nara Smith, a US-based model and influencer with nearly 5 million followers. The movement is often rooted in 'traditional' values, based on the idea of a woman looking after the home and children while the woman's husband goes off to work and earn money. Typically, it is associated with conservative values where the woman is seen as submissive, however defenders say those who follow it, do so as a matter of personal choice. Debating SA's topic choice left many questioning whether it was appropriate for Year 9 students to research and discuss, let alone be aware of the phrase 'Trad Wife'. 'Personally I think being able to debate around a topic even one that is clearly terrible is still an important skill,' one social media user said. 'But the point of contention is that tradwife stuff promotes not only staying at home, but actual straight up misogyny. And it would always be controversial to debate 'is it okay to hate women?'.' Another said: 'This is a huge misstep by the debating orgs (and I'm saying this as a former high school debater and coach).' 'Sounds like those who champion 'critical thinking, cultural nous and debate' to set this topic have NFI of the current cultural implications of the 'tradwife' movement online, especially its direct pipeline to white supremacy and misogyny,' another added. But others argued there was no real issue. 'I thought one of the points of debating was arguing for a side you don't necessarily agree with. My son recently was involved with a school debate where the topic was 'Is the current climate change man made?'. I don't see a trad wife debate being much different,' one parent wrote. Another weighed in: 'Honestly, if the goal is to teach kids how to think critically about the content they're bombarded with online, this isn't the worst topic to explore. 'The tradwife movement is something they'll run into on TikTok or YouTube eventually, so better to unpack it in a guided, moderated classroom than leave them to figure it out through algorithm-fed echo chambers. Context and intent matter. If this was framed as a critical discussion — not an endorsement — then it's literally education doing its job.' Following the outrage, Debating SA sent a clarification to schools, saying that students 'must look critically at sources'. 'It goes without saying that any websites that denigrate women (or any person) are not a good source of information and are not relevant to the topic,' the clarification, which also appeared on its website, said. 'To avoid any confusion about the topic, the following definitions for the purpose of the debate apply: 'Tradwife is a portmanteau for 'traditional wife', a woman who embraces traditional gender roles, primarily focusing on home making and family care, while her husband is the primary breadwinner. This can include cooking, cleaning, child-rearing, and maintaining the home. 'This term is intended to be synonymous with the idea of a stay at home parent.' 'The tradwife movement is therefore a group of people who support a lifestyle such as the above. Note that this does not include any concept of 'submission' as some sources may define. 'Good for women generally refers to something that has a positive impact on women's lives and wellbeing. Note specifically that the definition does not infer 'all women'.' In a further email provided to Sonja Lowen, the chairman of Debating SA, said: 'The positive response to the topic and our organisation [has] been well expressed by a number of people in the mainstream media. 'The negative response from some of the public has been very illuminating in the way in which they chose to express not only their views. but also the idea that there can be no debate about this subject. It seems that thinking about a subject that they don't agree with has become a radical act. Shutting down discussion is not a good idea and is the antithesis of a free society.' Ms Lowen said it made her realise debate provides a regulated forum for students to be able to present a case in a measured way, 'something some of the public would do well to emulate'. 'We expect our debaters to present their case with evidence and reasoning. It is very necessary for young people to be able to develop the skills to navigate their way in what is now a very complicated social landscape and those skills are perfected and refined by debating,' she said. 'Debating is an intellectual and academic discipline that allows the participants to examine both sides of a topic regardless of their own personal beliefs. This ability to explore both sides makes us tolerant of other views. Thinking is hard work and we should not surrender our intellectual independence because a topic may be difficult or in this case deemed unacceptable by some of the public.' But some were not satisfied with the reasoning from Debating SA. 'This isn't moderated in class discussion, it's a discussion topic for a Debating Competition, and the organisers have said that they used trad-wife as a synonym for 'stay at home parent',' one said. 'Honestly, their excuse sounds pretty pathetic – trad-wife is not a synonym for stay at home parent, it's a controversial social movement with significant connections to right-wing politics and influencers.' Another added: 'They're engaged enough to know the term, but not the context. 'Tradwife' is absolutely not a synonym for 'stay at home parent'. They've gone awry from the outset.' 'The issue is them conflating SAHM with Trad Wife. Trad wife is a social movement. They are vastly not the same thing. And the Trad Wife may not necessarily have children,' another said.
News.com.au
5 hours ago
- News.com.au
Phins enforcer binned for CRUNCHING hit!
NRL: Dolphins' second-rower Felise Kaufusi was sent to the sin bin for a crunching hit on young Cowboys halfback Tom Duffy.
