TRANSCRIPT
Moving house is considered to be one of the most stressful events in a person's life.
So in 2023, when thousands of Victorians received notice that their home was going to be demolished at some point between then and 2051, the stress was palpable.
“For me, it's an existential crisis. You know, as someone who doesn't have a lot, again, to offer her children. You know, there was the certainty of where we're living, which is so that rug has been pulled out from under our feet, and there's not a lot of certainty as the policy has unfolded.”
Home to over 10,000 people, Melbourne's 44 public housing towers were built to address chronic housing shortages after World War two.
Over the decades, the state-subsidised housing, which charges no more than 25 per cent of household income for rent, has become home for thousands of families.
For residents like Emma, whose name has been changed for privacy reasons, public housing was a lifeline.
“So I've been living on North Richmond estate for over 10 years, and I came here by virtue of homelessness because of domestic violence. So I'm forever grateful to the social policy of this government, because, as Maslow said before me, very eloquently, if you don't have a house, you know, roof over your head, you don't have anything. And for a single mum, you know, with two young children, it's kind of a big deal. So I'm very grateful for that.”
Now, in the middle of a housing crisis, the Victorian government is pushing ahead with plans to demolish all of the public housing towers in the state by 2051.
While some tenants have already been relocated and their homes demolished, Emma is still living in the North Richmond estate.
Public housing tenants are an incredibly diverse group of people, but the majority are women and many have complex needs or have experienced trauma and disadvantage in their lives.
For the past decade, Emma has made a home in the area.
Now, her future is uncertain again.
“I have no idea what that means for myself and my family, other than I know that it means relocating, which is very, very scary for us, especially because the kids are going to school and I, you know, I'm sad that I might have, they might have to uproot everything you know to find to I mean, you know, the government is saying they're going to make two offers, but what happens if neither of them, you know, meet our needs, as the current housing situation does.”
With more than 82,000 people currently on the waitlist for public housing in Victoria, the decision to demolish existing stock has been met with fierce opposition and legal challenge.
In December 2025, after a parliamentary inquiry into the policy, a report tabled in the Victorian parliament concluded that the state government had not publicly justified the demolitions.
Victorian Greens housing spokesperson Gabrielle de Vietri says tenants must be given more transparency about this life-altering policy.
“I would question in the first place whether they have any documents that they say they have. So feasibility reports, condition reports for each and every one of the buildings, cost benefit analysis, I would question whether the work has actually been done. And then if they do have evidence, I would question whether it actually points to the decision that they actually made.”
Throughout the fifteen month inquiry, the committee heard from residents across the 44 towers.
In their evidence, they found there had been significant trauma, distress and anxiety experienced caused by poor communication and uncertainty about the policy.
According to Dr David Kelly, a researcher at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, more than half of the families living in the towers have been there for over 10 years, building community and connections with the area.
Speaking at a hearing in July, resident Heaven told the committee about how her mental health was in decline as a result of the policy.
“Prior to coming here I lived in Lilydale. When I was in Lilydale I was in and out of psych wards and not seeing my nine children, and since I have been living here I have been seeing my nine children. I would know at least 200 people here where I can say, ‘Hello, how are you? How’s your day’ My mental health has improved out of sight. I am not on medication anymore. I had never been happier until I heard that they were going to crash the buildings down, which is daily anxiety.”
The Victorian housing minister, Harriet Shing, says the Allan Labor government is trying to deliver modern and accessible homes for people on the social housing register.
The government says that every household has been assigned a relocations officer to work closely with them and ensure the new homes suit their needs and preferences.
But, according to resident testimonies, many have felt forced or coerced into signing relocation papers, often without fully understanding what it is they're agreeing to.
Emma says that despite all the flyers delivered to the towers, residents still felt in the dark about it.
“There have been a lot of brochures in the mailboxes which is spruiking the merits of this latest iteration, you know, of public housing. I would say that nowhere do you have a more politicized citizen than a public housing tenant, and I appreciate all the efforts that the minister's gone to but I wonder why I'm none the wiser for all of that communication.”
The inquiry, backed by both the Victorian Greens and Victorian Liberal M-Ps, recommended that all redevelopment works be halted immediately until the government provides evidence to prove demolition is the best option.
The state government claimed executive privilege over 146 documents relating to the policy, releasing just 12 to the public.
As well as legal challenges raising concerns about the human rights of public housing tenants, serious questions have also been raised about why the government won't just fix the towers up.
The government claims that the ageing towers are no longer fit for purpose, but many architects and experts say other options are available.
Steve Mintern is a landscape architect and the co-founder and director of not-for-profit design and research practice OFFICE.
He says retrofitting is generally cheaper and better for social outcomes.
“ So we hope that the work is there to open up a conversation like we are having now around the possibility of retrofitting these buildings, and that there are really positive economic outcomes to the state budget. There are also huge social outcomes, especially for the residents, and there is an enormous environmental benefit. The state government has really ambitious net zero targets, and if we are going to hit those targets, it is very important that we construct and build in another way. The construction industry is a very, very polluting industry.”
It's no secret that the towers are old and many are in desperate need of repairs; the parliamentary inquiry confirmed that.
According to the report, however, the towers' decline, especially since the demolition was announced, could have been managed better by the state government.
The committee found that the Victorian Government has engaged in the process of what's called "managed decline" by failing to conduct repairs and maintenance in a timely manner.
In one hearing, tenant John Lowndes told the committee that some of the maintenance carried out made upkeep more difficult.
“Well, they did an upgrade and they took out all the copper piping and waste pipes except for the downpipes and then fused PVC to one copper downpipe through the building. That failed and turned into black mould. I mean, they replaced easy-to-clean surfaces with difficult-to-clean surfaces.”
In the limited documentation released, the government claims redevelopment is the cheapest option and says the towers aren't able to accommodate growing demand.
Gabrielle de Vietri says the documents provided don't show how these works are best for public housing tenants.
“The 12 documents that they did produce show that the meetings that they had before this decision were made were meetings with superannuation funds, with property developers, with people who were standing to profit.”
In a statement responding to the report, Harriet Shing says the redevelopment will provide housing for three times as many residents and pledged the redevelopment will increase social housing by at least 10 per cent.
Inner Melbourne Community Legal has called this "manifestly inadequate", arguing it will only equate to 440 new social homes over 28 years.
Defined as rental housing owned and managed by government or not-for-profit agencies, social housing is an umbrella term for both public and community housing.
Ekaterina Yurha has lived in the towers for 26 years.
While she isn't opposed to demolitions, she says she's worried about whether she can afford to live in community housing.
“I heard about this, about community housing. What is it? Yes, it is well done. It is very – everything is like a luxury, but very small houses. I did not see myself – but I know it is a bit more expensive than public. Being on disability pension I am really afraid, because more than half my pension is going to my medication – everything. That is what I was worried about – if I could manage or not. “
The report says the government relied on the term social housing to transfer public housing tenants into a privatised model, with little detail about possible cost increases for things like utility and rent.
Ekaterina says she has friends who moved into a new community housing development and thought it was fantastic, until their bills began to arrive.
“No. I spoke with my neighbour who was moved into Bangs Street. They were so glad to read of this one, as it was luxury, but now they are shocked after a while – already it has been a couple of months, I think, that they have been living there – because the bills were coming and they are, for them, shocking. And the electricity is not by their choice. Whatever they are given there, they have to follow.”
Despite the damning findings of the parliamentary committee, several legal challenges and the opposition of public housing tenants, the government is pushing ahead with the demolitions.
It's important to note that many of the residents say they're not opposed to the demolitions, they agree that the towers have been neglected and are beyond repair.
However, what many are opposed to is the reduction in public housing stock and the possibility that they'll be moved away from their community and the healthcare facilities they rely on.
YURHA: "We want to stay in this area because we are used to the community."
COMMITTEE CHAIR JOE MCCRACKEN: "So you don't want to be put somewhere different?"
YURHA: "That's right. Because we are already used to being here. For example, for me, unfortunately, the Alfred hospital is my second home most of the time. I need all this community, these friends. Everyone was shocked because I did not want anybody else, I want to see your face.”
