A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia

PhD Dissertation

Emily Schindeler

B.A. University of Queensland

School of Justice, Faculty of Law Queensland University of Technology

January 2010 Key Words:

Homeless, Homelessness, Homeless persons, Housing, Vagrancy, Poverty, Disadvantaged groups, Governance, Government policy, Public policy, Social policy, Housing policy, Human rights, Politics, Politics of law, Australia, Genealogy, Privacy Legislation, Tenancy Databases.

Abstract

The homeless have been subject to considerable scrutiny, historically and within current social, political and public discourse. The aetiology of homelessness has been the focus of a large body of economic, sociological, historical and political investigation. Importantly, efforts to conceptualise, explain and measure, the phenomenon of homelessness and homeless people has occurred largely within the context of defining “the problem of the homeless” and the generation of solutions to the ‘problem’. There has been little consideration of how and why homelessness has come to be seen, or understood, as a problem, or how this can change across time and/or place. This alternative stream of research has focused on tracing and analysing the relationship between how people experiencing homeless have become a matter of government concern and the manner in which homelessness itself has been problematised.

With this in mind this study has analysed the discourses - political, social and economic rationalities and knowledges - which have provided the conditions of possibility for the identification of the homeless and homelessness as a problem needing to be governed and the means for translating these discourses into the applied domain.

The aim of this thesis has been to contribute to current knowledge by developing a genealogy of the conditions and rationalities that have underpinned the problematisation of homelessness and the homeless. The outcome of this analysis has been to open up the opportunity to consider alternative governmental possibilities arising from the exposure of the way in which contemporary problematisation and responses have been influenced by the past. An understanding of this process creates an ability to appreciate the intended and unintended consequences for the future direction of public policy and contemporary research.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 2

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made .

Emily Schindeler

January 2010

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my since appreciation to my supervisor, Dr Sharon Hayes, whose encouragement and support was instrumental to the completion of this thesis.

Importantly, I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of Dr Melissa Bull whose belief in the value of this work and whose advice provided me with the confidence and the resolve to tackle it.

A thank you to Professor Kerry Carrington, for your willingness to step in when needed and to make time available in a very busy schedule to help me reach this final completion.

These acknowledgements would not be complete without an expression of appreciation to my daughter for her unwavering willingness to listen, to my son for his ability to ensure I remain focused on the light at the end, and to my husband for graciously accepting the innumerable nights that were spent in the library.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 8

Objective of this Thesis 8

Context for this Thesis 9

Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless 10

Conceptual Framework 13

Recurring Themes from a Literature Review 14 Defining and Counting the Homeless 14 Positing Causation as a Focus for Discourse 16 Economic Rationalities 17 Homelessness – Criminalising the Homeless and the Loss of Rights 19 The Problem of Housing and a Question of Welfare 21

Structure of Thesis 22

CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 24

Introduction 24

Governmentality, Power and Authority 24

Populations and Subjects 27

Rationalities: From Pastoral Power to Neo-liberal Rationalities 31

Application of Governmentality Framework to Homelessness 39

CHAPTER 3: CREATING A GOVERNABLE POPULATION 40

Introduction 40

Tools for Making Governable Populations 44

Inheriting the Discourse of the Problematic of the Homeless 47

Early Vagrancy Laws in Australia 51

Introduction of Income Support – The Deserving and Undeserving 52

Discovering Australia’s Homeless 57

Defining Australia’s Homeless 60

Counting the Homeless or Measuring Homelessness 63

Images of the Homeless – Making of the Other 67

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 4

Homeless as Research Subjects 70

CHAPTER 4 – POSITING CAUSATION FOR HOMELESSNESS – INTENDED AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES 72

Introduction 72

Governmentality and the Role of Knowledge 73

Evidence Based Policy and Positing Causation 76

Language and Governmentality 79

A Period of Economic and Social Change 82

The Beginning of a New Decade 92

Competing Discourses 103

Twenty First Century Views 110

The Missing Pieces of Evidence Based Discourse 116

CHAPTER 5 HUMAN RIGHTS AND HOMELESSNESS 117

Introduction 117

Genealogy of Human Rights Discourse 121

Political Rationalities and the Australian Legal Framework on Human Rights 129

International Conventions and the Rights of the Homeless 136

Obligations as a Signatory 139

Failure to Address Homelessness: Rights, Rhetoric and Values 141

Housing Programs 143

Rent Assistance – A Strategy that does not deliver 146

National Homelessness Strategy - A Discourse of Other 147

Political Rationalities, Poverty, Social Policy and Rights 149

Governmentality and Human Rights 156

CHAPTER 6: FEDERAL LAW AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO HOMELESSNESS 157

Introduction 157

Matters of Relevance 157

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 5

Citizenship, Representative Democracy and the Homeless 159

Historical Perspective on the Defining Citizens in Australia 163

Franchise 165

Origins of Privacy Legislation – Protection of Personal Information or Facilitating Commerce 173

Profiling the Australian Environment 1985 -1989 175

The Rise of Tenancy Database Industry 177

Homelessness and Second Class Citizenship 185

CHAPTER 7: THE PROBLEMATIC OF HOUSING 187

Introduction 187

Rationalities and National Housing Policy 188

The Rise of Physical Determinism and Governmental Engagement with Housing 191

Australian Housing Policy – The Post Federation Approach 192

Defining a Role of the Commonwealth in Housing 195

The Commonwealth Adopts a Welfare Housing Perspective 198

From A Problem of Supply to a Problem of Affordability: The New Discourse 199

Affordable Housing – A Re-Commitment to the Private Sector 203

Community Housing As Beneficiary of Government Policy 207

“Lackers, Slackers and Unwilling Victims” 209

Housing Discourse and Homelessness 210 Strategies, Programs, and Services – the Included and Excluded 211

A New Government – Housing Policy and the Problematic of Homelessness 217 Adoption of National Affordable Housing Agreement- Addressing Housing Supply 218 Homelessness – A Service Response 221

CHAPTER 8 – CONCLUSIONS 225

Governmentality, Alliances and Others 225

How have the homeless come to be a category of population, and homelessness a problem which needs to be governed? 227 Conditions of Possibility 229

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 6

In what ways have past and contemporary knowledge, political, economic and social rationalities, discourses and authorities made possible the various technologies through which acts of governing are expressed? 233 The Framework for Governing - Understanding Rationalities 233 Knowledge and Technologies 236 An Alternative Way of Seeing 242

BIBLIOGRAPHY 244

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 7

Chapter 1: Introduction

Objective of this Thesis

Homeless people have been variously labelled as criminals, victims, idlers or the deserving poor. They have been counted, classified, and regulated for over a millennium. The aetiology of homelessness has been the focus of a large body of economic, sociological, historical and political investigation. Importantly, efforts to conceptualise, explain or measure the phenomenon of homelessness have occurred largely within the context of dealing with the homeless and the generation of solutions to the ‘problem’.

My thesis is that the homeless and homelessness are problematised as a technology for governing individuals deemed to be outside acceptable social norms. The task of this thesis is to explore the conditions and rationalities that underpin the problematisation of homelessness and the homeless. The aim of this analysis is to open up the opportunity to consider alternative possibilities arising from the exposure of the way in which contemporary problematisation and responses have emerged. An understanding of this process creates an ability to appreciate the intended and unintended consequences for the direction of public policy and contemporary research. The key questions that this work seeks to answer are:

1. How have the homeless come to be a category of population, and homelessness a problem which needs to be governed?

2. In what ways have past and contemporary knowledge, political, economic and social rationalities, discourses and authorities made possible the various technologies through which acts of governing are expressed?

3. What are the intended and unintended consequences of such responses for the homeless and the homelessness? What alternative possibilities emerge from the spaces revealed from this analysis?

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 8

Context for this Thesis

Historical and current literature addressing homelessness has centred on efforts to demonstrate and explain causal links between homelessness and individual characteristics, or to argue a causal link between homelessness and economic, political and social structural factors (Working Party, 1973; Coopers Lybrand and WD Scott, 1985; Kendig Paris and Anderson, 1987; Neil and Fopp, 1992, McCaughey, 1992; Parker, Lindsay and McKeon, 1993; Burke, 1994; Supported Accommodation Assistance Program Strategic Directions, 1993; Crane and Braddock, 1995; Fopp, 1996; Moylan, 1997; Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Homelessness, 2001; Baldry, 2001; Kamieniecki, G. 2001; Meadowcroft and Charman, 2001; Homelessness Taskforce, 2008 ). More recently interest has emerged in pursuing explanations of the dynamics of homelessness, which seeks to establish linkages between various factors and the individual’s ability to move in and out of homelessness (Casey 2002; MacKenzie and Chamberlain, 2003; Walsh, Milford and Cain. 2003; Robinson, 2003; Morris, Judd, and Kavanagh 2005; Pinkney and Ewing, 2006; Johnson and Chamberlain, 2008). By the beginning of the twenty first century, more limited but recurring efforts have been made to critique the relationship of regulation of homeless people in relation to individual rights, civil entitlements and community membership (Shafir, 1998; Otto, 2002; Otto, 2003; Otto and Lynch, 2003; Walsh and Kelsey, 2004; Sackville, 2004; Walsh, 2005).

Existing literature that has focused on issues of causation through ascription of personal characteristics, enumeration or analysis of structural factors has relied extensively on quantitative and case study methodologies. Such studies have often been theoretically framed in terms of pathology or neo Marxist or state centred accounts. This is underlined by a common reference to economic explanations for the marginalisation of the individual, subpopulations and the homeless in particular (for example, Department of Social Security, 1978; Mendelson, 1979; Shlay and Rossi, 1992; Burke, 1994; Main, 1998; Wood, 2003; Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Homelessness, 2001; Pinkney and Ewing, 2006).

An alternative stream of research, as adopted in this thesis, focuses on developing and analysing the relationship between how the homeless have become a matter of government concern. This has meant the examination of the intellectual and instrumental practices that have contributed to how homelessness and the homeless have emerged as a problem to be addressed by Government and the consequences of these ways of thinking

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 9 and acting for those who are subject to it, as well as the broader Australian community and its various interests.

Currently this type of consideration is largely absent from Australian literature. Hence this study has undertaken a genealogy (Castel, 1994, Foucault 1984) of the problem of homelessness and the homeless in Australia. This has involved an analysis of the discourses, political, social and economic rationalities and knowledge, which have provided the conditions of possibility for the identification of the homeless and homelessness as a problem needing to be governed and the means of translating these discourses into everyday life. This alternative stream of research consists of an examination of:

• political debate which seeks to place homelessness within the framework of the prevailing political, social and economic rationalities;

• academic research undertaken by an increasing number of tertiary institutions and research centres concerned with community governance, policy and social, political and economic management;

• statutory frameworks enacted to regulate/govern the homeless and the discourses which have underpinned the creation of such frameworks; and

• programs, policies and applied strategies to reduce the incidence, or impact on the community, of homelessness, and their relationship to dominant discourse.

Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless

Drawing from the continued growth in regulation, in popular debate, Parliamentary argument and academic investigation, evidence suggests that the homeless and homelessness have been seen as problematic from as early as the 12 th century and have continued to recur as a problem for different reasons for governing institutions (including, but not limited to the bureaucratic state) in each subsequent century (Clowes, 1819; Webb, 1927; Beier, 1985; Culhane, 1996; Hayward, 1996; Humphrey, 1999: Chambliss, 1964, 2004).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 10

This thesis does not establish a position for or against any particular argument of causation, nor does it advocate for any particular form of response. It does, instead, seek to develop a genealogy which investigates the conditions under which the homeless and homelessness become a problem and in particular, a problem for the Australian (Commonwealth) Government. The conditions, within this context, are inclusive of emerging knowledge, economic, political and social rationalities that influence that discourse.

Using this approach it is possible to establish a foundation from which to examine the way in which the dominant rationalities that underpin this problematisation are translated into programs, strategies and technologies intended to regulate, or take action to reduce, the prevalence of homelessness and its impacts. This makes visible the way in which parallel, and sometimes convergent or conflicting, actions are able to influence the way the condition of homelessness and the homeless are understood. By undertaking a genealogy of homelessness it is possible to reveal the consequences of actions taken, and not taken.

The aim of this research is to contribute to current knowledge by establishing an understanding of the implicit and explicit impact of prevailing discourse and its expression in governing technologies which are designed to address the homeless and homelessness in the applied domain.

It is acknowledged that sub populations, homeless women, Indigenous people, younger and older people and the like have unique experiences, and that there are rationalities and issues specific to them. However, it is outside the parameters of the approach employed in this thesis to examine the dimensions relevant to individual sub populations.

The process used to consider these questions, described by Foucault (in Rabinow, 1984) as genealogy, is based upon an analysis of the historical transformations, the conditions which have enabled such transformations to occur, and their expression in the political rationalities which shape the actions of government. Importantly this approach is neither an archival approach to historical review nor a rewriting of the past through the present. It is rather an approach that seeks to lay open the conditions that have underpinned and shaped the present through examination of the past. Significantly, in developing a history of the present, the notion of any single causation or meta-theory must be avoided.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 11

Genealogy is a type of history of the present, to write such a history is to consider the history of a problem in terms of how it is seen at present. It is founded on the conviction that the present reflects a conjunction of elements inherited from the past and current motivations. It is to acknowledge that our contemporary problems and practices are quite distinct from the past; but equally, to recognise that our present arrangements were constructed out of materials and situations that existed at earlier points in time. Analysing a contemporary practice in this way means viewing it from the standpoint of the historical basis out of which it emerges; it means grounding out understandings of its current structure on the series of previous transformations. The past does not repeat itself in the present, but the present is played out, and innovates utilising the legacy of the past (Bull 2002, 24-25).

Genealogy is a process of tracing back how accepted institutional knowledge which is experienced as a ‘given’ has emerged from the bringing together of expert knowledge and local beliefs and understandings. By examining the historical roots of such institutional knowledge, and therefore the basis upon which power is exercised upon it, it is possible to open up other ways of seeing.

In using a genealogical approach, the researcher is able to select to examine those elements and materials that contribute to an understanding of the process of problematisation (Castel, 1994, cited in Bull, 2002, 25). Unlike an archival exploration of history, the process is not comprehensive of all materials, but it cannot, in its selectivity, become tantamount to revision of the past itself. In examining the ways in which the homeless and homelessness have been problematised and the responses which have been generated it is necessary to draw upon sources that have helped shape and been shaped by the dominant political and economic rationalities and discourse. Accordingly, the primary sources of data for this historically styled analysis have included:

• public records of political and parliamentary debate (e.g. Hansards, Parliamentary Reports) • Australian Government policy, legislation and regulation • reports prepared for, and by, the Commonwealth and State Governments • expert studies directed toward ‘knowing’ homelessness, and/or the homeless; and • documentation of public debate reflected in dominant media of the day.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 12

Conceptual Framework

The framework for this analysis is drawn from the concept of governmentality developed, and expanded upon, by Michel Foucault in the works Discipline and Punish (1977), Governmentality (1978) and subsequently in the essay ‘The Subject and Power’ (1982). Governmentality, that is the notion of governing of others and governing of one’s self, is concerned not only with governing by the state, but also how individuals come to govern themselves in a manner which is consistent with the objectives, and expectations, of governing authorities. Again, such authorities refer not just to the power of the state, but also to the governing influences of private interests such as the family, institutions, churches and the like. To govern is not simply related to the political state, but rather incorporates all the ways in which the individual is influenced to conduct him/herself in a particular way.

The relationship between private authorities and the state is an essential element in the governmentality framework. Social, scientific and technological knowledge profoundly influence the rationalities and practices of the state and its relationship to the individual and institutions. Whether by the creation of the knowable and governable populations through the application of statistical enumeration, or through the alliance of professional groups and centres of governing (such as schools, medical centres, courts), the power of governing is widely distributed, rather than the exclusive province of the state (Donzelot 1979; Rose and Miller 1992).

In this context Foucault questions: How do practices of governing others link up with the practices by which individuals govern themselves? How have governing authorities understood their powers and the problems they address? What rationalities of governing are implicit in their practices? How did they come to produce knowledge of the fields which they sought to programme? Through what technologies and dispostifs (specific assemblages of actors, knowledges, practices and techniques) are programs and rationalities translated into realised effects? (Garland 1997, 176).

Rationalities refer to “the ways of thinking and styles of reasoning that are embodied in a particular set of practices. It points to the forms of rationality that organise these practices, and supply them with their objectives and knowledge and forms of reflexivity” (Garland

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 13

1997, 184). Rationalities form the basis upon which a problem is defined and through which technologies of power are applied in various forms and configurations.

The notion of ‘others’ is an important mechanism for the creation of identity and for establishing the conditions for the exercise of power, whether through exclusion, segregation, suppression or inclusion. The formation of identity, of belonging or not belonging, is to no small extent achieved through the creation of ‘otherness’ through the subjective. The emergence of the sciences, and other disciplines, became powerful forces in the definition of ‘other’, for example defining insanity through the emergence of psychiatry. “We are only bodies capable of avoiding fixed identities because of an inexhaustible capacity to represent ourselves differently and to find new placement in shifting economic, social and ideological practices. In this way, Foucault showed how we might all begin to construct discourse aimed at subverting established identities and settled dominations as a condition for service both ourselves and others” (Hartootunian 1988, 134).

This framework is developed in chapter two and the linkages are made explicit throughout this thesis.

Recurring Themes from a Literature Review The purpose of this outline of recurring themes is to locate this thesis within the context of historic to current political, economic and social discourse as drawn from government, legal and scholarly literature. It specifically highlights the major themes that emerge with respect to homelessness as a problem and the implications for the technologies of governing. The purpose is to establish a counterpoint by exposing the particular ‘givens’ or assumptions that have framed such research, understandings and actions. This in turn provides an opportunity to consider the consequences of this trajectory as well as alternative possibilities.

Defining and Counting the Homeless Thomas Grangrind, sir. A man of realities. A man of facts and calculations. A man who proceeds upon the principle that two and two are four, and nothing over, and who not to be talked into anything over. ..With a ruler and pair of scales, and the multiplication table always in his pocket, sir, ready to weigh and measure any parcel

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 14

of human nature, and tell you exactly what it comes to. It is a mere question of figures, a case of simple arithmetic (Dickens 1854, 3).

Defining and classifying are vital processes in creating the division between ‘them and us’. It is by the drawing of boundaries that individual and community identities are formed, and made real. The consequence of this process is the capacity to identify the acceptable and unacceptable, and for the application of power in the context of “socially ordained disciplinary technology and normalisation” (Fopp 1996b, 216). It is important to understand how the fact of being ‘homeless’ emerged, and changed, as a specific subgroup of the Australian population.

There has been considerable definitional debate by those who seek to enumerate, describe and classify the homeless and homelessness (Sackville, 1976; Norwood, 1997; Chamberlain, 1999; Chamberlain and Johnson, 2001; Australian Institute of Health Welfare, 2006a, 2006b; Robinson, 2003). This contemporary debate reflects the competing perspectives that have dominated the discourse since the 13 th century. The definitional debate has its initial roots not in the definition of homelessness, but rather on the definition of those who have a right to a legitimate claim to and are eligible for assistance. The differentiation between the deserving and undeserving has been the primary purpose for the development of operational definitions which have in turn been used for the administration of Government and non Government programs for the homeless (e.g. Commonwealth/State social housing programs, income support and regulations). It is arguable that the problematisation of, and governmental responses to, homelessness have hinged on this differentiation.

The last decade has seen a growing concern with categorisation; that is efforts not only to define who is ‘legitimately’ homeless, but also to define homelessness itself. The debate has included a differentiation based upon literal, cultural and subjectivist definitions (Chamberlain, 2001) in terms of duration, that is temporary, episodic and chronic (Beavis, Klos, Carter and Douchant, 1997) and in terms of normative and cultural expectations (Neil and Fopp, 1992). Such definitional debate (and efforts at categorisation) is more than academic in its implications. It shapes the discourse upon which government action is based, differentiating between those ‘who are included in the count’ and those who are

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 15 not. In a monograph analysing the 1996 Census of homeless people based upon definition of primary, secondary and tertiary homelessness, Chamberlain this position in saying: There can be no meaningful public debate about the best policy responses to assist homeless people, unless there is reliable information on the number of homeless people in the community; the characteristics of the population (how many with children, how many people on their own, the number of people with a long-term problem and so forth) and information on the geographical spread of the population (Chamberlain 1999, 1).

The ongoing definitional debate becomes fundamental to how homelessness and the homeless have been perceived and the impact on consequential efforts to govern this population.

Positing Causation as a Focus for Discourse Is homelessness an inevitable – a given condition for society? Discourse around the cause of homelessness, and its inevitability, has been a dominant feature of the diverse social, economic and political arguments associated with the problematisation of the homeless and homelessness.

Although a number of factors have been attributed to the experience of homelessness, it is difficult to disentangle early discourse on the homeless from the discourse on poverty. From the 13 th century on, causation has been consistently posited not only to circumstances, but also to the individual (Humphreys, 1999; Spencer, 2002; Webb, 1927). From the earliest British poor law legislation to the contemporary homelessness strategies, discourse has not been concerned so much with poverty, but rather with employment and work. In a sense, a willingness to accept relief in a workhouse represented a lack of moral fibre, laziness and a need to be re-educated’ to the values of industry and hard work (Webb, 1927; Higginbotham, 2000).

This preoccupation with the need to describe, classify and account for homelessness with respect to ‘defining characteristics’ of the homeless continued. In fact, categories of classification identified in the early British legislation (to differentiate between the deserving and undeserving) remain largely unchanged in the first half of the twenty first century (Webb, 1927; Higginbotham, 2000). More contemporary research continues to try

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 16 to test or assert linkages between homelessness and mental health (Robinson, 2003; Herrman, H. McGorry, P. Bennett, P. van Reil, R. and Singh, B. 1989; Hodder, T. Teesson, M. and Buhrich, N. 1998; Homelessness Taskforce. 2008), substance use (Spooner 2006; Hodder, T., M. Teeeson and N. Burch 1998; Teesson, M., T.Hodder and N. Buhrich 2003) , age or gender (Casey, 2001; Chamberlain and Johnson, 2003; Kavanah et al, 2003), complex need (Bisset, Campbell, and Goodall, 1999; Jacobs, Anderson et al, 2003) and social disadvantage (Mullins and Western 2001; Wise, 1999).

The recurring theme of such studies lies in the focus on seeking or testing for a causal link between homelessness and individual deficiency. There is an implicit, if not explicit, insinuation that the experience of homelessness is accountable to some form of individual moral, social or criminal deviance. The homeless person’s conduct is inconsistent with the way the good citizen should/ would conduct himself for the ‘good of the community’ as well as themselves. In short, if the homelessness arises as a result of the individual’s deficit or fault, then solutions lie with the individual. From this perspective the centre of attention for government authorities, the problematisation of homelessness, lies in rescuing the individual from their circumstances (Procacci, 1991; Ward, 2001).

Economic Rationalities This primary concern with individual deficiency contrasts markedly with accounts that posit the cause of homelessness with the politics of the economy and the production and distribution of wealth. Governing of poverty, and indeed the politics of poverty, takes on a different light (Procacci, 1991). This view was articulated by Donnision in delivering the R.O. Smee Memorial Lecture, in observing that

Politics deals with the character of a society and particularly with the distribution of its benefits and costs – who gains and who loses. Government is an arbiter of conflicting views not as a technical decision but as a value decision. This includes the extent to which there is a desire for and commitment to an egalitarian society (1975, 1-2).

The relationship between regulation of the homeless, the unemployed and the needs of the employers has a long history. As early as the mid 14 th century when the black plague resulted in the death of 25 million people, The Statute of Cambridge of 1388 governed the

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 17 movement of vagrants, beggars and labourers searching for work and sought thereby to retain access to cheap labour in the country (Beirer 1985).

By the beginning of the 19 th century, the introduction of industrialisation and waged employment brought about new forms of poverty. Single artisans were displaced by the new industries; employment was highly variable in time and place, with periodic depressions, which made the working class highly vulnerable. The illusion that work was available for any able body person was simply that, an illusion (Culhane, 1996). However, in the discourse of political economy as expressed by such 19 th century thinkers as Jeremy Bentham and Adam Smith, the economy, with a focus on production of wealth, emerged as a science outside the social dimension. The economy was a matter for technical, cum scientific laws. Within the framework of political economy, and laissez faire economies, the notion of equity, social justice or the distributions of wealth are not entertained.

Just as the industrialisation process has been linked to increased homelessness, there is a significant body of literature linking the transformation of the economy in late twentieth century and the growth of homelessness. The processes of de-industrialisation, globalisation and employment restructuring have created a new set of conditions that increase the vulnerability of the working class to poverty and economic marginalisation. Increases in housing costs, unemployment and the number of working poor contribute to the conditions that underpin the affordability gap and increased prevalence of homelessness (Burt, 1992; Hopper and Hamburg 1996; Hopper, Sussex and Coniver 1985).

The social and economic transformations of the early nineteenth and late twentieth century occurred under very different historical circumstances. Structural shifts in the economy of both eras exposed unmet needs and increased the demand for public assistance. With the emergence of new forms of poverty and with the growing demand for ‘poor relief’ in urban centres, a debate raged in both periods about the merits of public assistance to the poor. Unfortunately, the change in historical circumstances was not accompanied by a change in the underlying attitudes about poverty and its victims (Culhane 1992, 53).

The problem which emerged was management of the population reflected in the discourse of social economy. Social economy, as distinct from political economy, concerned itself

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 18 with the social implication of economic matters. Social economy introduced the view of poverty as a problem able to be defined in terms of the behaviours of individuals, and which could be addressed through effective governance, and promotion of appropriate behaviours. This was substantively different from the previous discourse of political economy in which poverty was seen to exist as an inevitable counter to wealth, a given. In the context of political economy, proponents argued that the bureaucratic state should be concerned only with the well being of the economy (labour force, taxpayer and industry), without responsibility for the social implications of the impact of the economy on the individual (Procacci 1991, 154-155).

It was not until the rise of Keynesian welfare capitalism that there emerged an explicit state commitment to direct public provision of welfare benefits. The post war period of 1945- 1992 saw the emergence of a commitment to universal and unconditional social rights. The abandonment of Keynesian polity in the mid 1970’s reflected a change in economic rationalities and changing economic conditions. In the move to supply side economics and the individualisation of economic wellbeing, the welfare state was viewed as a barrier to economic recovery. The adoption of a market based economy, relying on competition and market forces to deliver wealth, saw a shift of economic risk not only to the poorest end of the population, but to the majority of the population. Labour market participation became the vehicle for social inclusion. Increasing inequalities in accessing the labour market as experienced by young people, women, and culturally marginalised, meant decreased opportunities for workforce participation and increased likelihood of economic and social exclusion and homelessness (Kennett, 1998; Lipmann, 1999; Quiggin, 1998).

Homelessness – Criminalising the Homeless and the Loss of Rights Official concern about the dangers rootless people might bring at any particular period of history can be gauged by the frequency with which pertinent Parliamentary Acts, Bills and Ordinances were proclaimed (Humphreys, 1999).

An important sub-text to the theories of causation, and the definitional debate, lies with the link in public, social and political discourse between the homeless and crime. In the 7 th century the English king Hlothaere enacted laws to punish vagrants. From this beginning through to the twenty-first century the law has been employed to not only regulate behaviour generally but equally to criminalise behaviour which is most likely to apply to the homeless. The homeless continue to be subject to considerably greater regulation than

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 19 applies to other citizens as a direct result of the provisions and application of criminal law (Lynch 2003; Walsh, 2005; Midgley, 2005; Abbarno, 1999). The enactment and enforcement of laws without regard to socio-economic status disproportionately and discriminatorily affect homeless people. For example, laws that prohibit drinking, sleeping, storing personal goods or other activities in public spaces directly discriminate and criminalise the homeless, who have no choice (Lynch, 2003). The selective application of the law can also discriminate. For example, “a homeless person in Swanston Street, Melbourne, is far more likely to be moved on, harassed or fined for drinking in public than a non-homeless person consuming alcohol at a picnic beside the Yarra River” (Lynch, 2003). Similarly, for example, the Queensland 1997 Police Responsibilities and Powers Act provided for ‘moving on powers’ including providing Local Government with the power to declare particular public spaces as ‘moving on zones’. This established the ability for local councils to manage the homeless out of public spaces which are historical gathering places for homeless people, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who may have a cultural link to such places (Coleman, 2000).

Citizenship rights, acknowledged by national and international agreement, involve civil, social and political rights. It is these rights that are seen as the vehicle by which inequalities are mitigated. However, appreciation of the way in which homelessness impacts on the access to, and practice of, the rights of citizenship is an important emerging focus of the discourse of social inclusion and exclusion (Abbarno, 1999; Goldie, 2003; Kennett, 1998). This includes not only the extent to which regulation of the civil rights of the homeless is used as a technology of governing, but also the extent to which homelessness becomes a barrier to the exercise of citizen rights.

Regulation of entitlements is also affected through administration systems of public services. For example, the administration of public programs as well as the legal system is significantly reliant upon institutionally related documentation (as well as a permanent address from which to receive correspondence). The inability of homeless persons to reasonably store and retain documentation has had a significant impact on their capacity to effectively respond to the demands of the regulation of such systems (Lynch, 2003).

Investigation into the ways in which homelessness impacts on citizen rights becomes an important aspect in understanding the social exclusionary effects of the dominant socio-

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 20 political discourses. A genealogy of homelessness begins to demand examination of the extent to which social, economic and political inclusion rather than poverty or shelter emerges as an important dimension of the problem.

The Problem of Housing and a Question of Welfare The genealogy of the way in which government has seen its relationship to the housing of its population is different from that of homelessness. From pre-federation through the twenty first century, issues of supply, regulation, labour force and industry needs have been critical factors in shaping Government policy and intervention in housing. Belief in the superiority of property ownership and a commitment to an economy based on a robust private sector has a long history. From early public health proponents, to urban planners, social reformers, charitable institutions and private sector interests, attempts to influence governments have largely centred on questions of housing supply, improving the operation of the housing market and addressing the impacts of a discontinuity between supply and demand (particularly where such discontinuity may impact on the operation of the private business sector). The active support of the private sector by the Australian Government is consistent with not only political and economic rationalities but also the fundamental feature of governmentality in which government works in concert with a network of like minded alliances.

In contrast government responses to the homeless have been largely in the context of welfare. This is closely related to dominant economic rationalities exacerbated by the view that poverty is an individual fault that is best addressed through regulation, rehabilitation, punishment or exclusion. The influence those claiming expertise with specialist social, scientific and technological knowledge have on the thinking and technologies of Government should also not be underestimated. By providing the ‘evidence’ upon which Government is able to shape policy responses, the alliance between the expert and government is as powerful as that of the alliance with private business and industry sectors. It is the contribution of such knowledge or evidence that has enabled homelessness to be viewed within a different discourse than that of housing.

By developing a genealogy of the discourse and interventions of Government in housing and homelessness it is possible to make visible the ways in which such thinking and actions can work from and toward different outcomes.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 21

Structure of Thesis Using governmentality as a theoretical framework it is possible to examine the intellectual and instrumental practices that have contributed to the problematisation of homelessness and the homeless and the consequences of these ways of thinking and acting for those who are subject to it, as well as the rest of society. This entails moving beyond literature that focuses principally on issues of causation, enumeration and definition and to draw out the rationalities and systems of governmentality that have contributed to, and sought to redress, the marginalisation of the homeless and homelessness in Australia. And through this analysis, it becomes possible to consider the fundamental questions of what are the intended and unintended consequences of such ways of thinking and responding and what alternative possibilities emerge from the spaces revealed by this analysis?

The structure of this thesis sets out this analysis as follows:

Chapter Two sets out the theoretical framework for the thesis. This discussion articulates the theoretical concepts that shape contemporary understanding of, and the response to homeless persons and homelessness. This includes the Focauldian concepts of governmentality, power, the role of expert knowledge, rationalities and technologies. This conceptualisation helps us to understand how the homeless are transformed into subjects lacking the ability or willingness to be self-governing and therefore require intervention in the form of pastoral and state action.

Chapter Three focuses on how the homeless have become known as a category of population that need to be governed. This requires an examination of the way in which the problem of the homeless (and what constitutes homelessness) has come to be defined and counted. The implications of definition for the problematisation of the homeless, rather than homelessness itself, begin to emerge from this discussion.

Chapter Four explores the discourses that have underpinned the positing of causation for homelessness, and for people becoming, and remaining, homeless. Causation has been consistently posited variously to the individual (with an implication that homelessness is accountable to some form of individual fault or deviance) and to the broader economic and social environment (with an implicit association with dominant economic and social

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 22 rationalities). This chapter draws from, and has links to, the critical contribution of ‘expert knowledge’ as well as the rationalities that underpin the governing of the homeless.

Chapter Five sets out a genealogy of human rights discourse, its relationship to the role of Government, with particular regard to the implications for the relationship between Government and the population. It is argued that the homeless, individually and as a group, have been excluded from accessing the rights accorded more broadly to the population, not as ‘collateral damage’ but rather as a direct legacy of Government policy. Further, it can be shown that this is a logical expression of a social and political philosophy that is at odds with the notion of universal human rights.

Chapter Six is concerned with the ways in which the legal apparatus of the Australian criminal justice system directly impacts on people who experience homelessness. This includes consideration of the ways in which the law, and its implementation, are employed as a tool of government. While acknowledging the historic origins of the legislation which criminalises homelessness itself, this chapter continues the primary focus of this thesis on the national perspective through the unfolding of the intended and unintended consequences of such regulatory regimes.

Chapter Seven is concerned with tracing Government’s engagement with housing and the rationalities which characterise such engagement. From a governmental perspective, it is the dominant political values and rationalities that shape how the Government establishes those matters that lie within scope of its interests and the nature of action that it will take. This makes it essential to consider how such rationalities have fashioned the Australian Government’s approach to its role in housing (including all actions which impact on the production, accessibility, affordability and the need for housing in its various forms). This analysis demonstrates that there has been and still is only a tenuous link between national housing policies and homelessness.

Chapter 8 articulates the consequences of the rationalities which have underpinned the dominant discourses associated with the homeless and homelessness. Particular regard is given to the manner in which the current Government discourse aligns with the past and what alternative possibilities emerge from the spaces revealed by this analysis.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 23

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework

Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to set out the nature and relevance of the theoretical framework adopted in this study. Of particular importance is the demonstration of the relevance of this framework to answering the question of what possibilities arise as a result of exposing the way in which the homeless have emerged as a problem for government and the consequences of such thinking.

As stated in Chapter 1, the structure for this analysis is drawn from the Focauldian concept of governmentality. Of specific relevance are the critical notions of power and authority, population and subject. These are not, however, stand-alone concepts or relationships. Rather, they are determined by and prone to redefinition based upon the rationalities of the day, which in turn are shaped by and respond to changes (positive and negative) in the economic, social and political environment.

Governmentality, Power and Authority Foucault asserts in The Order of Things that modern society is understood and shaped by the exercise of power (1970, 136). Subsequently in The History of Sexuality (1976) and later in Discipline and Punish (1977) Foucault describes pre-modern times as being characterised by the exercise of absolute power by the monarchy, enforced through a combination of violence and a threat of violence. The primary concern of the monarchy was the maintenance of the integrity of territorial sovereignty. Foucault further suggests that the breakdown of the feudal system and emergence of the institutional state had a number of significant consequences. The first of these was the separation of responsibility for personal conduct from that of dependency and reciprocal obligation and the second was the separation of the state from religion, by which the rationalities of governing (reason of government) were separate from those of the theological domain or that of the sovereign (Hindess 1996, 107). With the emergence of the institution of the state, there was also a consequent shift in the role of the state, whose primary concern lay not in the preservation of sovereignty, but rather in managing growth of population and the economy. In his lecture on Governmentality Foucault points out that the,

“...the art of government finds its first form of crystallisation, organised around the theme of reason of state, understood not in the negative and pejorative sense we

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 24

give it today, but in a full and positive sense: the state is governed according to rational principles which are intrinsic to it and which cannot be derived solely from natural or divine laws or the principles of wisdom and prudence.” (1978, 212-213).

It is, then, the rationalities of government that determine what is and is not considered within the scope of the state and the technologies and tools that are used for this purpose.

In this shift, and the emergence of the modern state, Foucault also identifies the rise of disciplinary power, which relies upon a web of institutions and authorities outside the state. The notion of disciplinary power is linked with knowledge and with the concept of the individual, who is able to make deliberate choice, who experiences guilt and conscience. By having knowledge about the individual, it is possible to mould choices, behaviours and compliance. In this way disciplinary power has embedded within it the notion of self-governing that is, that subjects make a conscious choice to govern themselves in accordance with the prevailing rationalities that shape the state and civil society. The exercise of disciplinary power was increasingly achieved through the institutions of governing, through prisons, through schools, through regulation of hospitals and work. Foucault postulates that by having knowledge of the subject, it is possible to exercise such disciplinary power in an effective way. It is this linkage between knowledge and power that provided the impetus for the growth, and application of the social sciences and statistics as a technology of discipline (Hindess 1996, 116).

Governmentality is used as a term to describe the governing of others and governing of one’s self in a manner that is consistent with the objectives, and expectations, of dominant discourses of governing authorities. The term ‘authorities’ is inclusive both of the power of the state and the governing influences of private interests such as the family, institutions, churches and the like. To govern is not simply related to the political state, but rather incorporates all the ways in which the individual is influenced to conduct him/herself in a particular way. In Technologies of Self, Foucault described governmentality as “the relation between the technologies of domination of others and those of the self that is the relation between state administration and pastoralism” (Foucault 1988, 19).

The manner of governing is determined on the basis that it is consistent with, and will deliver, a rationally administered and managed social order. The role of governing, through the state and other institutions, involves the shaping of the public and private behaviour

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 25 consistent with the needs of maintaining such order. However the problem that Foucault identifies is that individuals and populations cannot always be expected to have established the necessary habits and behaviours (Hindess, 1996:130). This sets the parameters and justifications for the exercise of power, the creation of subjects and the subjugation of populations. It is essential therefore to examine the political rationalities that determine the notion of social order, the exercise of power and the knowledge that underpins it. This analysis is needed to reveal the reality created by, and the consequences of, such rationalities.

Rationalities, in this context, refer not simply to the explicit rhetoric of politics, legislation or policy. Rather, rationalities refer to “the ways of thinking and styles of reasoning that are embodied in a particular set of practices. It points to the forms of rationality that organise these practices, and supply them with their objectives and knowledge and forms of reflexivity” (Garland 1997, 184). Rationalities form the basis upon which a problem is defined and through which technologies of power are applied in various forms and configurations.

The notion that the power of governing works through a variety of vectors, not just the political state, is further developed by Nikolas Rose and Peter Miller in Political Power Beyond the State: Problematics of Government:

Political power is exercised today through a profusion of shifting alliances between diverse authorities in projects to govern a multitude of facets of economic activity, social life and individual conduct. Power is not so much a matter of imposing constraints upon citizens as of ‘making up’ citizens capable of bearing a kind of regulated freedom. Personal autonomy is not the antithesis of political power, but a key term in its exercise, the more so because most individuals are not merely the subjects of power but play a part in its operations (Rose and Miller 1992, 174).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 26 groups and centres of governing (such as schools, medical centres, courts), the power of governing is widely distributed, rather than the exclusive province of the state (Donzelot 1979, 48-49; Rose and Miller 1992,176-178).

It is because the regulatory tools of the state shape the norms and values of the broader society that the state is able to forge alliances with the network of agencies and through which it is possible to construct the self-governing individual. This in turn provides the rationale for interventions by the state. Foucault suggests that the emergence of the norm as the primary tool of social control rather than the law marks the transition to modernity. Dean (1999, 73) describes this as a folding and unfolding between the political and non- political sphere. Within the context of disciplinary power, the state is dependent upon the self-governing individual in whom political goals are aligned with personal goals, and self- regulation emerges as a primary vehicle of regulation.

Dean argues that unlike the traditional view of liberalism as a philosophy based on limited government and self-governing individuals, liberal democracies are grounded in ‘authoritarian mentalities’ in which individual freedom is overridden by ‘enforced obligations on members of the population’ (Dean 2002, 38). The use of authoritarian controls by the state is enabled by mutual expectations about how good citizens will conduct themselves. Equally because liberal rationality has as its foundation the limitation of the sphere of control by the state itself, the application of controls is also reliant upon regulation through networks outside the state (Donzelot 1979, 169; Rose and Miller 1992, 177; Mead 1986 cited by Dean 2002, 38-39).

It is this complex arrangement of power relationships, with the state, with the population, with the subject and the varying alliances in which the state operates that frame modern society as much as the technologies of law, governance and authority.

Populations and Subjects The emergence of the concept of population, as an object of government, was enabled through the development of statistical, scientific and disciplinary knowledge. Populations, as a group, are generated by the production of knowledge that creates a reality and understandings that totalises individuals. In a sense the making of populations encloses those populations into groups that either contribute to or undermine the achievement of

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 27 social order. Populations produced through the exercise of statistical and disciplinary knowledge are presented as a ‘truth’, which sets the basis for understanding and actions (Rose and Miller 1992, 185). The ability to ascribe characteristics to, count, and formulate populations is therefore not politically neutral. The act of determining the subject of counting, what is counted, how it is counted, the method of classification, and the interpretation of data, has the effect of creating new social identities, capturing individuals into populations and objects for intervention. In Subject and Power , Foucault describes this as individualising and totalising power 1982, 332).

The techniques used to create populations have the effect of presenting manufactured knowledge as truths, which ultimately become ‘known’ as common sense understandings, justifying the exercise of power. Bauman (2001,32) describes the process of creation of populations as a cultural pursuit devoted to the act “of classifying, segregating, drawing boundaries - and so dividing people into categories internally united by similarity and externally separated by difference; and of differentiating the ranges of conduct assigned to the humans allocated to different categories". This notion of differentiation is the foundation upon which the norm exists. Populations are then culturally produced and their acceptance sets the boundaries for understanding that effectively shrouds alternative perspectives.

In Birth of the Clinic (1975), Foucault asserted that the capacity to create populations resulted from the rise of social medicine. With the development of individual medical records, and the ability to aggregate such records, it became possible to begin to talk about pathologies, not just in terms of the subject, but also in terms of populations. In this way both the population and the individual came to be viewed as the objects of intervention. It is instructive to observe that the focus on the creation of populations was in its infancy and its early development primarily associated with deviancy, suicide, crime, vagrancy, madness, prostitution, and disease.

By constructing populations, the state is able to establish particular messages about a group in terms of whether they are deserving or undeserving, and which can be expressed in terms of a social construction, e.g. the ‘homeless’, the ‘mentally ill’, the ‘criminal’. The subject population then gets its meaning by way of a contrast or comparison with given parameters of the norm or standard (Miller and O’Leary 1987, 238; Kyle 2005, 105). This

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 28 meaning is, however, subject to a cultural filter, which shapes the characterisations and caricatures of the target population, as either deserving or undeserving. By constructing vulnerable populations in terms of deviance from the dominant health, economic and social norms, they can be categorised as a threat to the stability and social order.

Rose (1999, 16) points out that neo-liberal forms of government hinge on an expectation that individuals are self responsible, autonomous and enterprising in meeting their own health and well being. Social ills are a limitation of the individual rather than social, economic or political structures. It is then possible to posit responsibility on the individual’s incapacity, or unwillingness, to be self-regulating. Problematising is about creating the conditions under which intervention is needed, the generation of consensus that something must be done, and focuses on the individuals who are excluded from it.

In this way, the concept of population is linked to the notion of subject as an important mechanism for the creation of identity and for establishing the conditions for the exercise of power, whether through exclusion, segregation, suppression or inclusion. The formation of identity, of belonging or not belonging, is to no small extent achieved through the creation of ‘otherness’. It is in this context that the emergence of the sciences, and complementary disciplines, became powerful forces in the definition of ‘other’, for example defining ‘madness’ through the emergence of psychiatry. The development of mathematics, and in particular statistics, created the capacity to generate knowledge through the quantification of social and economic facts that could be used to administer and regulate populations. Knowledge and information become tools by which populations are made real, constructing moral boundaries that describe acceptable and unacceptable norms of behaviour and justifications for disciplinary action (Rose 1991, 677; Hacking 1981, 15; Foucault 1977, 183).

The creation of subjects, through the labelling and defining process, has the power of enshrining normative or acceptable behaviour through mechanisms of coercion (applying the tools available to governments) and through the governing of individuals and groups through self regulation, governing of one’s own behaviour in accordance with expectations of acceptable behaviour.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 29

It is relevant to reflect on the notion of the relationship between subject and power as an inherent part of the regulation of behaviour.

The form of power that applies itself to immediate everyday life categorizes the individual, makes him by his own individuality, attaches him to his own identity, imposes a law of truth on him that he must recognize and others have to recognize in him. It is a form of power that makes individuals subjects. There are two meanings of the word ‘subject’: subject to someone else by control and dependence, and tied to his own identity by a conscience or self-knowledge. Both meanings suggest a form of power that subjugates and makes subject to (Foucault 1982, 551).

Within a framework of governmentality, freedom becomes a technique for achieving the aims of government, by relying on the willingness of individuals to govern themselves. It is then reasonable to conclude that it is the failure of the individual, whether through lack of values, incapacity or unwillingness to adopt normative behaviours that problems arise.

The link between the notion of rationalities and populations is the application of technologies that allow individuals and communities to be ordered with respect to prevailing rationalities. Autonomy is dictated by conformity with prevailing norms and objectives.

Cultural influences have set up the assumptions about the mind, the body, and the universe with which we begin; pose the questions we ask; influence the facts we seek; determine the interpretations we give these facts; and direct our reaction to these interpretations and conclusions (Myrdal 1944, 92).

Foucault then postulates that a feedback relationship between knowledge and power is essential to the way in which identities are created for populations, for individuals and for the making of both governable populations and the self-governing individual. It is through the institutions of power that knowledge is created, and made ‘true’, and through that truth the notion of normalcy, and deviance, are defined. Individuals and groups are to become increasingly controlled by these standards and in their conformity promulgate the perceived truth of such norms. The knowledge generated by the emerging disciplines of statistics, psychiatry, criminology and medicine made it possible to put in place the

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 30 technologies by which the population becomes both the subject and perpetuator of power. The exercise of power is achieved through the constitution of identity and subject and by regulation.

Rationalities: From Pastoral Power to Neo-liberal Rationalities Rose and Miller (1992, 179) offer an analysis of what is meant by rationalities by ascribing three principal and common characteristics. All rationalities are characterised as having a moral dimension, an epistemological character, and a distinctive idiom. The moral dimension is taken to be the basis for determining the appropriate powers and obligations of the governing authorities. The ascription of characteristics of the subjects of governing forms the epistemological character of the rationality. This is not limited to that of people or the individual, but equally to broader concepts of economy or wealth. Finally the language of the rationality is the basis by which it is feasible to establish a type of reality for the exercise of power Rose and Miller (1992, 179).

Using this framework, it is possible to trace the way in which pastoral, liberal and neo- liberal rationalities have structured and reconfigured the relationship between government (meaning more than the state, but the state and its instrumentalities in the public and private sectors) and those and that which are governed.

The concept of pastoral power is used by Foucault in the Subject and Power (1982a, 333) to describe a particular view of the relationship between the governing and the governed in the 16 th to 18 th centuries. The relationship of the state to the governed (and its instruments for exercising power) is essentially parental in nature, providing for the wellbeing of the group. Drawing from a theological base, the role of the Government parallels that of the family, with a responsibility for the welfare, wellbeing and the regulation of individual behaviour. This is consistent with Foucault’s analogy of the shepherd to its flock as described in Omnes et Singulatim (1982a, 300). A key feature of this relationship is that neither the liberty nor consent of those being governed (whether by the state or patriarch) is presumed or considered. The regulation of conduct is directed towards the betterment of the broader society as well as the individual, all of which is understood as falling within the parameters of policing.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 31

Hindess (1996, 120) cites Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England of 1783 to illustrate this relationship in which ‘public police and economy’ are defined as:

the due regulation and domestic order of the kingdom: whereby the individuals of the state, like members of a well-governed family, are bound to conform their general behaviour to the rules of propriety, good neighbourhood, and good manners; and to be decent, industrious and inoffensive in their respective stations (Blackstone 1978,162).

Although the concept of liberty emerged as a foundational difference between pastoral and liberal rationalities, the enduring linkage was that of the church-based notion of the pastoral practice of self-examination, confession and seeking guidance in difficult situations. The use of therapy, counselling, case management and training of personnel as a means for teaching (and seeking to enforce) self governing and behaviour modification remain as important techniques of both government and its instrumentalities in the public, philanthropic and private sectors (Hindess 1996,123).

The critical characteristic of pastoral power is its quantum shift from the protection of territory by a sovereign, to the regulation of the population. This shift is encapsulated by the observation of Guillaume de La Perrier and cited by Foucault in his lecture on Governmentality , ‘government is the right disposition of things, arranged so as to lead to a convenient end’ (Foucault 978, 208). The key word is that of ‘things’, which is taken to include both people and the complex of relationships associated with wealth, with management of the land, and ways of acting and thinking. Again, Foucault called upon an analogy of the captain to a ship in which governing involves the welfare of the ship itself, its cargo, its men and its obligations to the owner. This then sets the rationality of governing beyond that of the territory, which was the dominant raison d’être for the exercise of the sovereign’s power.

The second critical term used by La Perrier is that of ‘convenient end’. This differentiates the objective of a common good, as defined by those with the power of governing, to the achievement of specific objectives. Accordingly, the tools and technologies for governing, including (but not exclusively of) laws, are understood as the apparatus of government that form part of the art of governing (Foucault 1978, 96).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 32

The transformation from pastoral power to a liberal rationality was enabled by the growth of knowledge (in particular statistical techniques) that allowed the individual and family to be reconstructed as populations with particular characteristics, and with this the evolution of an economy centred political order. At the same time, new political theory emerged in which the notion of ‘interest’ rather than ‘rights’ of the individual becomes dominant (Kerr 1999, 79).

Liberal rationality, unlike its predecessor, is founded on the principal of free individuals able to make choices and having responsibility for such choices. This incorporates not only a choice of individual actions, but also the freedom to choose to be governed. Government under liberal rationality is minimal, and in which regulation shapes a complex of alliances between the state and the private domain. The operation of such alliances is made possible through the acceptance of the notion of mutual obligation in which the individual, the corporation, the philanthropist and community freely chose to act according to agreed norms. This relationship of the state and the act of governing is described as, “the domain of politics simultaneously distinguished from other spheres of rule, and inextricably bound to them” (Rose and Miller 1992, 181). In this way Government is able to employ freedom as a technique for achieving its ends, relying on the population to govern themselves.

Importantly, it is the failure to comply with the mutual obligation, whether for example as a law-breaker, through anti social behaviours, or through poverty, that the problematic of governing may be established. Disciplinary interventions, through incarceration in prison or asylum, through education, therapy and counselling, or workhouse, are needed to address the deficiencies of the non-compliant. It is through the act of interpretation that the state and its instrumentalities determine the problems that lie within its realm, and for which programs of government are needed, and those which fall beyond their interest. In making such determinations, there is a supposition that the object of intervention is able to be neutralised or eliminated by such actions.

The reciprocal relationship between knowledge, the sciences, and governing is described by Foucault in terms of power/knowledge. Through the sciences ‘problems’ can be quantified, described and made real, as well as uncovering the means for solution. It is these processes of calculation and inscription of characteristics that become principal

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 33 technologies of government. In practice the relationship between the experts and those who govern becomes intertwined in a political dimension, although both the Government and experts often purport otherwise. The legitimacy of Government action and regulation (direct and indirect) is inherently linked to, and enabled by, the workings of the institutions and individuals responsible for the production of knowledge (Rose and Miller 1992, 177- 178; Graham and Neu 2004, 299; Rose 1991, 675-676; Miller and O’Leary 1987, 236-237). Just as the knowledge industry is in alliance with the state, there is a parallel relationship with various public and private institutions for the creation and implementation of Government programs and regulation.

The rise of welfarism in the early part of the twentieth century can be understood as the outcome of the confluence of factors. Although the nineteenth century saw the rise of philanthropic responses to poverty, disease and poor public health, as well as the breakdown of norms or social relationships, there was a concurrent expansion in the use of statistics. This generated the capacity to ‘govern by numbers’ (Rose 1991, 673) and brought about an increasing awareness of the consequences of such problems for the achievement of economic and social objects of liberal governance. Increases in mortality, decreasing birth rates, threats to the labour force and wealth generation created the need for action. It was in this environment that programs for public health and infrastructure, public schools and public housing emerged as a technology of government.

Through the process of problematisation and the adoption of a variety of practices and programs the Government directed its efforts to strategies, which would more effectively incorporate subject populations into the broader social order- that is civil society. Social programs then became a technique of governing with increasing dependence upon alliances with institutions, with managers, and services able to promote and facilitate the take up of mutual obligation. This interpretation is consistent with Burchell’s (1997, 375) description of classical liberalism as a goal-directed practice grounded in the principles of ‘reason of state’ and ‘science of police’, with the latter being understood in a regulatory framework.

The growth of welfarism within the liberal rationality was based upon the notion of a social obligation amongst a free society. It occurred within a framework of regulation and authority designed by the Government and administered by both public and private

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 34 institutions. Programs of welfare were couched in, and remained embedded within them, the principles of reciprocal and binding obligations, whether through the requirement for the individual to do work (workhouses to work for the dole) and to behave in a particular manner. Developing and implementing the welfare agenda also saw an expansion in the alliance between the state and the knowledge produced by the experts. Not only was this period characterised by a significant and rapid rise in the public funding of social benefit but also increased public funding of the social, statistical and medical sciences. The making of governable citizens was understood to be part of the broader responsibility of the institutions that were also the beneficiaries of expanded funding.

The rise of neo-liberalism as outlined by Rose and Miller (1992, 175) represented a break in rationality on all three dimensions of morals, character and language. Underpinning the shift away from welfarism and to an economic rationalist approach, were a number of fundamental principles that redefined what was, and was not, in the proper domain of the state.

The first of these principles was the argument, advanced by a conglomerate of experts in social sciences and drawing on the quantification of populations who were recipients of such supports, that the outcome of such programs was to produce a culture of dependency rather than independence (Rose and Miller 1992, 198). This moral position emerged as a primary justification for the reduction in such programs, arguing that rather than responsibility of the state; it is the responsibility of individuals to ensure their own economic and social well-being (Lemke 2001, 201). This argument presumed a link between good economic citizenship and the responsible citizen (Rose and Miller 1992, 198; Lemke 2001, 194). Social problems are the result of a failure of the individual, lack of values, determination and non-normative behaviours, rather the economy (Lemke 2001, 202).

Within the liberal and neo-liberal framework, it is economic character that forms the foundation for social and political understandings of individual identity. It is this notion of economic value that frames the classification of subjects who are unable, or who have not yet attained the ability, to meet social and political norms of self-governance, autonomy and independence. Those who are judged to be temporarily in need of assistance, but who are deemed to be generally responsible citizens, are viewed as part of the broader economic community. In comparison, those who are considered to be at risk of becoming dependent on support in the long term, the ‘other’ whose behaviours and attitudes

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 35 exclude them from social and economic citizenship, are subject to far more authoritarian regulation. This includes compulsory participation in case management, increased sanctions for failure to meet ‘obligations’ and the requirement to participate in programs that will render the individual to be ‘of good economic character’. “The division between those who can be profitably assisted in the exercise of their own freedom and those who must be coerced to fulfil certain obligations in order to accede to a conditional generally agreed to be freedom may be a necessary feature of all liberalisms” (Dean 2003, 47).

Lemke (2001, 201) expands this notion through analysis of the neo-liberal rationalities in which the state shifts responsibility for the management of risks for illness, unemployment, poverty and safety to the autonomous moral and economic character of the individual. The allocation of social responsibility for the consequences of the individual decision-making then becomes the basis for redefining the role of the Government.

Neo-liberalism is a political rationality that tried to render the social domain economic and to link a reduction in (welfare) state services and security systems to the increasing call for personal responsibility and self are. In this way, we can decipher the neo-liberal harmony in which not only the individual body, but also collective bodies and institutions, corporations and states have to be lean, fit, flexible and autonomous: it is a technique of power (Lemke 2001, 203).

The language of neo-liberal rationality is one of the market place, in which it is the role of the state to defend the economic interests of the citizens, and to promote the autonomy and freedom of entrepreneurial activity (Rose and Miller 1992, 187). Security, collective wellbeing and civil society are based upon supporting the economic capacity for independence achieved through minimal government and regulation. “Neo liberalism is both a political discourse about the nature of rule and a set of practices that facilitate the governing of individuals from a distance” (Larner, 2000, 6).

With the emergence of neo-liberal rationality, a transformation occurred in the way the Government operates, resources were allocated and the practices that were adopted. The public sector seeks to operate as the private sector, taking on the trappings and practices of the commercial enterprise. This is evidenced by such practices as the adoption of corporatising and privatising of utilities and public authorities, use of performance based management systems for public institutions (e.g. universities) and output or throughput

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 36 based reporting regimes (Dean 2002,49). At the same time, the Government actively promotes and embraces business relationships with the corporate sector as a means for implementing the programs of government. This is noticeably seen for example in the contracting out of the social, welfare and housing programs and an increasing privatisation of health care and social insurance (superannuation). The adoption of the ‘purchase of service model’ that dominates the way in which the neo-liberal state conducts its business, reflects the integration of the business model to that of public governance (House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, 1998; Casey and Dalton, 2004; Burke and Hayward, 2005; Baulderstone, 2006). This is illustrated by the adoption of the classification of social service recipients as customers or consumers who are, theoretically if not practically, able to exercise choice within the marketplace (Donnsion, 1975; Clarke and Newman, 1997). The adoption of community development discourse (more recently known in the form of community engagement or community capacity building) becomes a tactic by which prior responsibilities of the Government are reallocated to the individual and community. The promotion of community action programs, for example, reassign responsibility for safety, reduction of crime and victim support to the individual and civil society (Butcher, 2006).

However the neo-liberal rationality in no way reduces the Government’s discretion in determining what is within, and what is without, the scope of its activities and interests. The Government remains in control of the transformation of what is governed, how it is governed and the form of regulation guided by and consistent with the prevailing rationality.

The development of the business model as the basis for Government action had significant impact on the regulation of the non-government agencies (both philanthropic and private) through which services are provided to defined eligible populations (Caulfied, 1999; Kerr and Savelsberg, 2001). Because the period of welfarism saw an increasing level of service resources directed to this sector, an industry of social service providers reliant on public funding was created. Using the control of such funding as a primary tool for directing the nature of services, the populations to be served, and the conditions for the provision of funds to deliver services, substantive and structural changes were enacted. A business model dominated by national organisations operating in accordance with competitive and business practice increasingly replaced the local benevolent service agency (House of

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 37

Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, 1998; Casey and Dalton, 2004; Baulderstone, 2006). Funded agencies were faced not only with increased requirements to be eligible for funding through the adoption of mandatory national standards, but equally increasing prescription on the nature of reporting and accountabilities for the number of services provided, to whom, for what purpose. From reporting on outputs and outcomes, services were increasingly quantified and subject to scrutiny for performance (Paulsen, 2003; Clarke, and Newman, 1997; Burke and Hayward, 2001; Centre for Corporate Public Affairs, 2008).

The most critical change however was an increasing demand that service providers demonstrate a capacity for financial viability in the same manner as a commercial business, as a sine qua non for receipt of public funding. This requirement acted to consolidate the position of the larger agencies to the further expense of the local agencies, mirroring the dominance of the major players in the national and international market place (RPR Consulting, 2003; Centre for Corporate Public Affairs, 2008; Community Housing Federation of Australia, 2009).

Two other marked changes in delivery of social and financial supports occurred as a direct result of the shift to a neo-liberal rationality. There emerged an increasing focus on redefining the basis for eligibility for assistance, replacing a matter of entitlement with that of ‘deserving’. Tests for eligibility and conditions for receipt of any service or benefit were revised as a means for managing demand while reducing supply (ACIR, 1984; National Housing Strategy, 1992; Industry Commission Inquiry into Public Housing, 1992; COAG, 1995; Caulfield, 1999; Community Housing Forum Report, 2003). This is particularly notable, for example, in the area of housing in which the actual investment in and maintenance of housing stock decreased, while requirements for eligibility became more stringent. Further, the focus of housing assistance increasingly took the form of small monetary payments to be used specifically for rent, seeking to re-orient those eligible for assistance by way of financial disadvantage back to the private housing market (Industry Commission Inquiry into Public Housing, 1992; COAG, 1995; National Housing Strategy, 200; Keating, 1995; Burke and Hayward, 2005). Security of tenure in public housing was replaced by fixed term leases, with increasing rates of evictions for tenancy violations. Requirements placed on beneficiaries of services took a significantly greater emphasis on demonstration of willingness to submit to ‘being managed’, to counselling and to meeting

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 38 defined obligations in return for service (Fopp, 1996; Burke and Hayward, 2005). Such tactics are exemplified by the evolution of ‘work for the dole’ as mutual obligation to ‘work choices’ and concurrent reporting obligations (Community Affairs References Committee, 2004).

The neo-liberal approach to defining and describing ‘the subject’ requiring intervention has been facilitated by a highly directed research regime. Through the alliance of research institutions and the state there it has been possible to create expert knowledge that focused on demonstrating the nature of individual and broad population deficiencies, that contribute to an inability to operate as an independent, self supporting economic citizen. By ascribing causation to mental deficiencies, to substance use, to addiction and gambling, to lack of social and financial skills, or poor parenting, it becomes possible to increasingly identify the population as ‘the problem’ and to label causation (Baldry, E., D. McDonnell, P. Maplestone and M. Peters. 2003; Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2007; Bessant, J., H. Coupland, T. Dalton, L. Maher, J. Rowe and R. Watts, 2002; Bisset, H., Campbell, S. and J. Goodall. 1999; Council to Homeless Persons. 2001; Dwyer, R. 2001; Hodder, M Teesson & N Buhrich.1998; Kamieniecki, G. 2001; Vanstone, 2003; Rudd, 2008; MHCA 2009). It is this problematisation that ultimately provides the justification for the adoption of both sanctions (mutual obligations, new regulation and laws) and tactics to ‘rehabilitate’ the subject (such as the birth of a range of targeted programs, which in the words of the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (2009) are designed “ to promote healthy family relationships and gives families the opportunities to take part in their local communities ”). Such discourse continues to ignore any economic or structural factors positing ‘fault’ to the individual.

Application of Governmentality Framework to Homelessness Using this theoretical framework of governmentality it will be possible to examine the intellectual and instrumental practices that have contributed to the problematisation of homelessness and the homeless and the consequences of these ways of thinking and acting for those who are subject to it as well as the national community more broadly. This will entail moving beyond existing literature that focuses principally on issues of causation, enumeration and definition, which rely extensively on quantitative and case study methodologies. Through this genealogy it will be possible to draw out the rationalities and

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 39 systems of governmentality that have contributed to, and sought to redress, the marginalisation of the homeless and homelessness in Australia.

Chapter 3: Creating a Governable Population

Introduction The word ‘homeless’ did not appear in the Australian Parliamentary lexicon until the seventh decade of the twentieth century (Whitlam, 1975). This is not to imply that there were no homeless Australians prior to this; rather, the aim of this chapter is to examine the origins and trajectory through which a population within Australia came to be labelled as homeless and defined as problematic. Subsequent chapters of this thesis explore the consequences of such thinking.

As documented in subsequent chapters, despite changing political, economic and social discourse, the perception that people who are poor, unemployed, and more specifically do not have a place of residence, are a problem has centuries of precedence. Essential to this thesis is the concept of population, referring both to the whole of the population and at the same time applying to groups or populations within the whole. Populations are able to be classified, enumerated, studied, described and made subject of economic, political, legal and administrative technologies of government. Accordingly, the second critical component is the relationship of the population to the Government.

In focusing on the relationship between the population and the Government, Rose and Miller (1992, 174) assert that the exercise of power by the Government is directed towards fostering the development of a population able to function in an environment of regulated freedom. This means that individuals accept the implicit limitations and are competent accomplices to the perpetuation of such parameters through their economic, social and personal conduct. Individuals, groups or populations unable or unwilling to conform and behave appropriately within this environment meet the requisite condition to be viewed as a problem, and may be considered to be a legitimate concern or interest to the Government.

Significantly, the way in which any non conforming economic, social or personal conduct is understood is determined by the specific messages that are ascribed to the individual. It is

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 40 through carefully constructed messages that the Government is able to generate a positive or negative perception about specific sorts of conduct and those for whom such conduct is typified. Because such messages shape the character and caricatures that are attributed to the individual or population for whom such conduct is ascribed, they carry an implicit judgement of whether such conduct is problematic and if it is a matter of concern for the state or the population at large.

This process of socially constructing populations based on comparison against or in relation to given standards of behaviour is an expression of power and is critical to the maintenance of such power. By labelling and naming behaviour or conduct as deviant, such norms or standards continue to be legitimised. This in turn informs the extent to which such conduct is to be tolerated. The unconventional artist, lacking in means, security or employment, may well be thought of as bohemian and eccentric, though is still considered acceptable. However, the itinerant vagabond also lacking in employment or means is likely to be harshly condemned. An individual or population, then, is assessed in comparison with or in relation to a norm or standard, the meaning of which is subject to a culture filter (Kyle 2005, 27).

Bauman similarly suggests that the process of making distinctions and creating boundaries around populations based on similarities and differences is a cultural artefact. The reference for differentiation and drawing of boundaries is that of the generically acknowledged and implicitly state-endorsed standards of conduct of individuals and groups (Bauman 2001, 32).

“The vast majority of conscious experience of the world, if not all conscious experience, is mediated through language; differentiation underlies all meaningful social relations” (Kyle 2005, 26). Language is an important vehicle of power, as a tool it shapes the dominant discourse, and is inherently linked to the techniques by which populations are described, counted, grouped and made into governable subjects. Labelling of behaviour and characteristics has the force of making up an individual identity and the creation of a population based on specified characteristics. This applies equally to the making of the criminal, the mentally ill, the poor, the artist, the genius or the otherwise exceptional. This then can be used as a basis for justifying any steps taken that act upon that population, as a

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 41 group or as individuals. The problem is able to be defined in terms of the individual rather than any structural or external factors.

The poor as a population subject to and an object of governing have been regarded as having failed to meet accepted standards of behaviour. Although the standards or norms by which individuals are judged do change over time, it has been in exceptional circumstances that failure to meet such norms has not been regarded as a result of individual fault. Victim blaming, consistent with an ideology of individual responsibility, as promoted by the Government and its alliances, has been consistent. It is through this process that a population of others is made known and the message of intolerance can be ascribed. This is relevant to the poor generally and the homeless specifically. Personal deficiency, flawed attitudes and social inadequacy characterise the discourse on those labelled first as vagrant and subsequently as homeless and continually as poor.

Neither the Government nor the public are insensitive to context or circumstances. For example, during the Great Depression of the 1930’s there was universal acceptance of the personal consequences of the international economic breakdown. Similarly, today, as in the past, those who are rendered homeless by a natural (climatic) disaster are differentiated from those who are deemed to be homeless as a result of their own failure. Whilst assistance and support may be afforded the former, reform and penalty are directed to the latter. Rosenthal (2000) describes this classification in terms of the ‘lackers’, slackers and unwilling victims. Hence it is the seeing of a problem from a certain perspective which determines whether it is an issue that merits public acknowledgement and by which the state justifies the action (or inaction, supportive or regulatory) that it pursues (Kyle 2005, 23; Rosenthal 2000, 111).

The use of language (through labelling, messages and differentiation) is only one technology which contributes to the creation of governable populations. Knowledge offers an indispensible means for legitimising the way a population or a problem is framed. It has the capacity to produce a form of reality, to construct ideas, populations and concepts upon which action is based. Knowledge is able to confirm and expand upon the understanding or perception of a subject population. This in turn has implications for what is considered knowledge and how it is used to represent and constitute objects of knowledge (Dean and Hindess 1998, 9).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 42

Language and messages also provide critical direction to and help shape the nature of knowledge that is generated. By creating a class of research subjects, such as the mentally ill, the gifted, and the vagrant, it becomes possible to direct investigations to examine individual or group traits and characteristics. Research tools can then be focused on creating knowledge which reinforces the conceptualisation of populations and the messages ascribed to them (Wright 1993, 3-4).

Social scientists have contributed to the development and perpetuation of such social constructs through the creation of typologies that link personal characteristics with a label. The result is the power to cloak the discourse of condemnation, stereotyping and stigmatisation in academic clothing (Dworkin and Bomer 2008, 108).

Crucially, knowledge provides the basis for representing a ‘truth’ and the justification of the exercise of power by the state or those who would act with it, as a regulator through various activities, interventions and actions. Consequently, there is a reciprocal relationship between the Government and social scientists. Through this relationship the Government is able to legitimise its actions and the research community is able to present itself as having the unique expertise to make such problems understood and to provide the “evidence base” for solutions (Dandekar 1999, 172; Miller and O’Leary 1987, 247).

Accordingly, language, knowledge and the preservation of cultural norms of behaviour are critical forces in the construction of governable populations. There is an implicit power relationship between the Government, other vectors of influence and the individual, who may be the object of regulation. It is through this relationship that the notion of subject is established.

The creation of governable populations is predicated not only upon the exercise of power but also the capacity to create individuals and populations whose self identity enables such regulation to be accepted. The technology of classification has a direct consequence through the construction of a ‘them and us’ dichotomy and fostering an identity of self. This self identity is then able to be linked to the identity as a subject population different from others. Foucault situates this creation of a subject within a power perspective, placing it within a legal and normative context (Foucault 1982, 331; Fopp 1996b, 216).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 43

Fopp (1996, 214) also highlights the importance of classification as a vital process in creating boundaries between individual and community identities, between that which is acceptable and unacceptable. The consequence of this process is the application of power through socially ordained disciplinary technologies directed towards bringing about individual conformity. It is by variously coercing and offering encouragement that individuals are able to be reformed or, as described by Foucault, normalised as part of the broader population (Fopp 2002, 52). By focusing on the characteristics and pathologies of a population, the individual is vulnerable to viewing him or herself in terms of such categories of need or deficiency.

Relying on the moral and epistemological dimensions of political rationalities, which embody social, economic and civic norms, the Government is able to construct a governable population over which it is able to legitimately take action. Whether by regulation, supervision, administration or discipline, the state in concert with its network of economic, political, institutional and social allies, is able to take the steps it feels appropriate to counteract and remedy unacceptable forms of non conformity (Rose and Miller 1992, 179). Further, it is through such alliances, particularly through the media, that the messages are broadcast and the requisite knowledge generated.

Tools for Making Governable Populations Defining, classifying and counting are critical tools for the making of governable populations. Although the employment of such tools may have the appearance of neutrality they are in fact inherently political. The nature of the decisions made about what to define, how to define it, what and how to measure is a fundamental exercise of power by virtue of setting the parameters for inclusion and exclusion (Alonso and Starr 1987, 3).

The establishment of definitions and systems of classification become vehicles for generating more knowledge. These tools enable a population to be circumscribed or a problem to be framed in a manner which is presented as scientific rather than judgemental or moral. Defining poverty, disability or criminality in any particular way and implementing an enumeration process based on such definition, confirms the way in which such terms are understood, whether applied to a population or a problem. Such definitions and classifications, justified by assertions of knowledge, effectively determine the direction and focus for the generation of new evidence or knowledge. By looking for evidence of specific

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 44 traits or characteristics, research outcomes are likely to become, in practice, self-fulfilling prophecies. In this way research, whether academic, governmental or commercial, can be seen as complicit in generating the knowledge which reinforces the social construction of the subject or population as an object of intervention.

This view was articulated in Governing by Numbers in which Rose observed that: Techniques of inscription and accumulation of facts about ‘the population”, the “national economy”, “poverty” render visible a domain with a certain internal homogeneity and external boundaries. In each case, the collection and aggregation of numbers participates in the fabrication of a clearing within which thought and action can occur (Rose 1991, 676).

Such processes are not benign. They are part of the paradigm shift to the adoption of the techniques of quantification and implicit objectification of populations, which enables political action to be taken (Porter 1986, 27; Hacking 1990, 3; Kyle 2005, 61). Statistics then emerge as an instrument for the production of knowledge, which appears as objective and value free. In reality, statistics play a role in the generation of truths that are consistent with and support the prevailing ideology and state power (Swoln 1988, 187). Numbers do much more than simply describe a pre-existing reality. They also contribute to the creation of that reality.

The process of counting has the effect of translating individuals into groups and numbers. At the same time there is an equal interest in the method of deriving the number, the accuracy of the counting and the tools that are used. This can re-orient ascribed meaning from the basis of attribution to the tools being employed. The consequence then, no matter how contentious the argument may be about methodology, is that the argument maintains focused on the count. As noted by Graham and Neu, “discourse about methods is substituted for discourse about values” (Graham and Neu 2004, 302, 310).

The research tools then have the effect of creating a filter that directs attention to procedural mechanics. Interpretations are made and populations are created by virtue of the tests applied, with eligibility for inclusion or exclusion determined on the basis of the limitations or attributes of the techniques of calculation. The subjects of such techniques, those who are counted, become synonymous with those attributes which were the basis

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 45 for inclusion. They also become potential subjects of disciplinary power. The aim of the exercise of power, in any form, is the reformation of the subject. By reconstructing themselves by internalising and compliance with cultural norms and expectations, the subject will effectively modify the offending behaviours (Dean 1994, 195). In practical terms, defining and counting have the ability to consolidate and promote the division between the conforming and non-conforming, the broader population and others.

From the early statists of the 19th century, enumeration has been used by social reformers and governments. Although the early statists were primarily liberal bureaucrats and reformers rather than mathematicians or philosophers, they were concerned with using statistics to generate truths about mass phenomena even though the causes of each individual action were unknown (Porter 1986, 6). By the late 19th century however, social statistics became facts upon which governments could make decisions (Porter 1986, 27).

In The Taming of Chance (1994) Hacking calls attention to the fact that those early efforts to classify and establish statistical regularities focused on behaviours which were considered deviant and problematic such as suicide, crime, vagrancy, madness and disease. These were selected as the focus of study in a politically charged framework, based on the belief that deviant populations could be reformed or controlled through such study.

The link between social quantification and technologies of government is evident in the translation of such numbers in the surveillance and regulation of the criminal (and construction of jails), the mentally ill (and the construction of institutions), and the creation of the norm against which all else is measured.

This social construction, through the process of labelling, describing and counting, then moulds the way in which a problem is understood. By formulating the problem of the homeless, attention is focused on the failings of the individual rather than on any structural factors that contribute to homelessness (Kyle 2005, 56). The definitional debate becomes fundamental to how the homeless have been classified and the consequential implications of the way in which to govern this population.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 46

Inheriting the Discourse of the Problematic of the Homeless As previously observed in Chapter 1, the need to classify, describe and count subject populations, including the homeless, has a long history, with counting people of ‘no fixed abode’ being the first efforts were made to define those who might be eligible to be assisted by the parish (local residents) and those who would not (others such as non locals). By the late 1800’s processes of codifying, counting and reporting on the poor and homeless had been developed into a sophisticated accounting system. In this way inmates of workhouses and poorhouses had become a governed population, subject to the administrative processes of the state and reporting by local bureaucrats.

From inception regulation of the vagrant, or more generally the poor and unemployed had its roots not in any social concern, but rather on changing economic and political concerns. A combination of an increased movement of a population looking for work and seeking aid from local parishes, and the decimation of the labouring population by the Black Plague combined to create pressures on the government at all levels to take action to address the rising problem of insufficient numbers of workers. Economic concerns were intensified by the increasing wages which workers were able to attract, exacerbating the rate of exodus from the land, and the claim by landowners that they were unable to match such costs.

In 1274 legislation was enacted which was designed to relieve the financial burden on churches who had historically been the provider for the destitute. This legislation effectively placed a protective barrier around all religious centres by forbidding anyone travelling through a parish to ask for food and shelter from the local church. As the labour shortage worsened and there was an increased exodus from bonded work on the land, new regulations were enacted and by 1349 it became unlawful to provide money to any person who was unemployed but considered capable of being so. Just a decade later, laws became more onerous with prison sentences for those who avoided work and it became unlawful for a person to leave the land where he was doing bonded service for higher wages in the city (Chambliss 1964, 68-69).

This early regulation differentiated between those who were deemed to legitimately deserve assistance and those who did not. The Statute of Cambridge, enacted in 1388, introduced a statutory distinction between the impotent poor (those who were incapable of work such as the aged or infirm) and the able bodied. This was the first well documented

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 47 system for classifying the deserving and undeserving poor. In general there was little change in the focus of regulation over the next 150 years, other than increasing the nature of punishment.

However, the focus of regulation shifted significantly from early in the 16 th century. There was a fundamental change in the language of the Government, reflecting a concurrent re- imaging of a population. Whereas the term vagrant had its roots in the notion of wandering, and specifically wandering in search of work, this was transformed as being synonymous with anti-social if not criminal behaviour. By the publication of the 1503 Statute of Henry VII the language of association emerged ‘and if any ruffians – after having been once apprehended...shall wander, loiter, or idle use themselves and play the vagabonds...shall be... not only whipped again...’ ([22 Hen.8, c.12] in Chambliss 1964, 72)

This change also needs to be understood in the context of shifting economic conditions. The rise of mercantilism and the transport of goods generated a policing concern (for both Government and business) with regard to establishing the means of protection against theft, with the unemployed being seen visible targets for action . Laws then were less about regulation of workers and more about protection against dangerous populations.

Five years after the adoption of the 1503 statute, the linkage between homelessness and criminality was confirmed by the provision: Whoever man or woman being not lame, impotent, or so aged or diseased that he or she cannot work, to having whereon to live, shall be lurking in any house, or loitering or idle wandering by the highway side, or in streets, cities, towns or villages, to applying themselves to some honest labour, and so continuing for three days; or running away from their work; every such person shall be taken for a vagabond. And upon conviction of two witnesses the same loiterer shall be marked with a hot iron in the breast with the letter V, and adjudged him to the person bringing him, to be his slave for two years [22 Hen.8, c.12).

Great Britain’s 1531 Poor Laws were largely concerned with the regulation of begging as a criminal behaviour. While assigning places where the deserving could beg, the legislation did not acknowledge any responsibility to the population by the monarch or the state, other than as the keepers of order. Vagrancy was seen as offensive, both in a religious

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 48 context that is the sin of being idle, and to the state, as an obligation to work (Kyle 2005, 76).

It was in 1571 that this definition of criminality was finalised with the provision that ‘all rogues, vagabonds, and sturdy beggars shall... be committed to the common gaol’ (Vagrancy Act cited within Chambliss, 1964, 93). While excluding legitimate itinerant workers, the regulation specified the inclusion of occupations taken to be criminal such as jugglers, pedlars, tinkers, and idle persons, who were classified as criminal along with counterfeiters and those using ‘crafty and unlawful games or plays’ . And to leave no room for doubt, Chapter 17 of the Vagrancy Act provided that vagabonds, vagrants and highwaymen were inter-changeable labels.

Through this legislation the homeless poor were effectively aligned with those engaged in what would otherwise be considered criminal acts as being one and the same. This criminal label, with an implicit message of dangerousness, continued to be reinforced and expanded upon over subsequent centuries. In a practical sense, for the poor, homelessness became a crime of being .

The change in language and meaning is reflective of this changing discourse. While the term pauper was used to describe the homeless poor in the 14 th century, it morphed to become a description of deserving poor women 1 and ultimately by the 19th century had come to describe the poor with connotations of laziness and being workshy (Gans 1995, 15).

The Poor Law Act 1598 for the Relief of the Poor took a next step in making a distinction between the deserving and undeserving. This was to become a defining principle for regulation and relief. As previously, the provision of relief, even to the deserving, remained a local issue while the central government remained responsible principally for maintaining social order. Social control was then focused on penalising those who failed in their responsibility to work and creating the conditions in which the alternative to labour was punishment (Berns 2002, 25; Chambliss 1964, 70). At the same time, provision was made for those unable to labour such as young children, the aged and the disabled who were to receive aid from the local parish Church.

1 It was in the Poor Laws of 1734 that widows were identified as deserving poor, paupers that were not relegated to the workhouse but entitled to some financial support.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 49

The vice of idleness, historically as in the present, came to be seen as a cancer upon the body politic. Unless excised from the social order, like a cancer, it would metastasise and bring down that order. For this reason, among others, the relationship between the Poor Law, the regulation of labour and the criminal law has always been fluid, it being appropriate both to coerce the labouring population and punish those who sought illegitimately, to avoid the social obligation to labour (Berns 2002, 24).

The 1601 Act for the Relief of the Poor introduced a distinction between almshouses for the impotent poor and workhouses for the able bodied. Like previous Acts, the 1601 Act for the Relief of the Poor, the subsequent Act of Settlement 1662 and the General Act for the Relief of the Poor 1723 all worked from the premise that poverty and its attendant behaviours were a result of individual failing, which would be addressed by regulating the non-working poor.

The Poor Relief Act 1662 created the power for Justices of the Peace to compulsorily return a person back to their previous location if a complaint was received that the person had arrived within the last forty days and was judged to need, or likely to need, some form of assistance. Once removed, the person was not entitled to move from their permanent place of settlement. This statutory tool was made possible by the shared concern of parishes responsible for the provision of aid to the poor and local authorities concerned that they would be overrun by poor, homeless and landless people moving from the country to the city in search of work.

The aim was to minimise local responsibility for services to the poor, and to establish a penalty for individuals seeking such welfare support. However the law effectively created a substantial barrier to the homeless and unemployed to remedy their situation by not allowing them to relocate to places where the burgeoning trade and commerce was likely to offer work.

Following considerable controversy from all sides of the debate, the British Prime Minister, Earl Grey, set up a Poor Law Commission in 1833 to examine the working of the Poor Law system. Consistent with the recommendations of the Commission, Parliament passed the

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 50

Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 which specified that no able-bodied person was to receive money or other help from the Poor Law authorities except in a workhouse and the conditions in workhouses were to be very harsh to discourage people from seeing it as a desirable way of getting help. Food and clothing were to be provided to those in the workhouse and children would receive some schooling, in return for which they would have to work for several hours.

There was reasonably widespread support for the Poor Law Amendment Act because it was seen as reducing the cost of helping the poor, would take panhandlers off the streets and would encourage the poor to work hard to support themselves.

This early exercise of sovereign and state power in creating an offence of vagrancy, simultaneously established the identity of the criminal, by way of being unemployed and thereby a risk to others. From the nineteenth through the twentieth century, vagrancy laws and attendant powers of criminalisation in Great Britain remained largely unchanged in purpose or principle. Regulation and legislation continued to define, differentiate and classify as a method of determining eligibility for entitlements as compared to punishment relegation to the workhouse or prison.

The notion of the deserving and undeserving, idleness as a crime, the provision of aid or regulation as a local issue and a focus on rehabilitation to become responsible citizens that characterised the English precedent, from the early vagrancy laws, has been consistent with the depiction of the poor, the homeless and unemployed as undesirable and potentially dangerous idlers.

Early Vagrancy Laws in Australia The narrative that underpins the historic problematic in England, can be seen in the characterisation, regulation and policies adopted in pre-twentieth century Australia. The Vagrancy Legislation of 1845 (Tasmania), 1835 (New South Wales), 1851 (Queensland ) and 1836 (Victoria ) mimicked the English legislation of the time, in which prostitution, begging, being without lawful means, public drunkenness, consorting with known criminals, disorderly behaviour and offensiveness, were classified as criminal offences. The criminalisation of begging and the like meant that the homeless were circumscribed as a

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 51 criminal population needing to be regulated, reformed, and more broadly seen as blameworthy.

Highly illustrative of the English legacy in the exercise of power over the poor homeless in early Australia is that of the industrial schools of the mid to late nineteenth century. Enabled by the NSW, Western Australian and Victorian legislation, children deemed to be without means of support, vagrant, incorrigible or rendered up by parents, were able to be placed in specially established Industrial Schools. In New South Wales, for example, the categories by which children could be removed into an industrial school included: Living with Prostitutes; Living or Wandering with Thieves; No Means of Support; No Ostensible Legal Occupation and Sleeping in the Open Air (Parkes 1854, 4; Smith 1989, 6).

However, Industrial Schools were not intended for educational purposes, but rather to meet two important outcomes: to add to the labour force through compulsory service and apprenticeships; and to address what was deemed to be low morals and anti-social behaviours of children. In his annual report in 1890, Superintendent Neitenstein of the ship Vernon 2 reported that the ship operated on the general principle, “That the boys shall be continually occupied and thoroughly fatigued and combined well with the strict mental program of humiliation, depersonalisation and repression... to improve the boys physically and morally, to bring them under control, to teach them to be clean, obedient and respectful and to raise their self-respect” (1890). The Industrial Schools can then be understood as being a mechanism for controlling the dangerous, for protecting the vulnerable or retribution for unacceptable activities. Notably, it reflected a position in which such young people were seen principally as a group which need to be governed and moulded to become compliant with the commercial needs and regulatory expectations of the time.

Introduction of Income Support – The Deserving and Undeserving

Prior to Australian federation, relief for the destitute was limited to that provided by charitable organisations that operated workhouses in the settled colonies, or through application to a magistrate, who determined the allocation of the periodic contributions from the local community. For example, the South Australian Destitute Person Act 1881 provided for the making of a loan contingent on other family members being responsible

2 An industrial school based on developing more colonial seaman for commercial traders

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 52 for repayment and support. Eligibility remained linked to worthiness and those who were considered ‘not respectable’ were denied relief.

The Constitution provided the Commonwealth Government with a limited role with respect to social welfare, with powers to legislate only in respect of old-age and invalid pensions. As a consequence, there was little change following federation. Local communities, whether through charities, churches or councils, provided what meagre assistance that was available for the poor and homeless. Although New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland had introduced age pensions by 1908, neither the states nor the Commonwealth were interested in taking on any responsibility for the poor generally or the homeless in particular.

The earliest engagement of the national government in providing for the welfare of the population occurred some seven years after federation. Despite its limitations, Australia was viewed retrospectively as a leader in the provision of social welfare (including in establishing minimum living wage and a maximum number of hours of labor that could be required in a working week) in the early years of the twentieth century. However, as noted by Castles and Uhr (2007, 98), from the end of World War I, Australia began to fall behind in comparison to both European and North American counterparts. For the three decades after the end of the Second World War, social security expenditure as a proportion of Gross National Product (GNP) was virtually unchanged.

The Invalid and Old Age Pensions Act 1908 established the means by which Government would provide income support for the aged and disabled. This occurred at a time in which Alfred Deakin and subsequently Andrew Fisher (from 1905-1908) undertook a legislative program, which formed the Commonwealth Government’s statutory framework. However ,eligibility requirements excluded not only those living overseas, but also naturalised citizens who had resided in Australia less than three years, as well as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, and non Australian born people from Asia, Africa, Pacific Island or New Zealand. Other exclusions were ‘those of not good character’ and any man who had deserted or failed to maintain or deserted his wife in the preceding five years without just cause. Further, it was established that a pension could be paid directly to an institution, organisation or other person if the pensioner was assessed as being untrustworthy or unfit.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 53

“Others - widows, orphans, the unemployed, unmarried mothers and aliens- were left to seek relief from the states and private charities, but the help available was limited, difficult to access, and deliberately humiliating.” (Bern, 2002, 33)

Between 1910 and 1912 amendments of the Aged Pension Act enabled women aged 60 years and over to receive a pension, and relaxed the three year impost on ineligibility of naturalised citizens. While further amendments over the next century would address some limitations, these restrictions were replaced by others.

Between 1941 and 1944 the Commonwealth Government, under the leadership of Prime Minister John Curtin, effectively ignored the Constitutional provisions and extended its welfare role with the enactment of the Child Endowment Act 1941, the Widows’ Pension Act 1942 and Unemployment and Sickness Benefits Act 1944 which provided for relief beyond the aged or invalid. However, the link between moral failings and poverty was enshrined in the provision which stated assistance could be refused to women who were sexually active, suspected of involvement in prostitution, or deemed to lead dissolute lives, and who were, therefore, not considered to be amongst the deserving poor.

Through the 1946 constitutional referendum the scope of matters provided under section 51 of the Australian Constitution was extended and enabled the Commonwealth Government to offer assistance to select deserving groups’ 3. The Social Security Act 1947, which brought this earlier legislation under one roof, maintained the concept of deserving and undeserving. Despite the Commonwealth Government’s acceptance of a role in providing income support, this legislation and subsequent amendments applied criteria that defined merit in terms of age, disability, marital status, race or ethnicity.

Throughout this period the Commonwealth Government developed a role in the provision of financial support. However, there was no reference to, definition of, or consideration of poverty as a justification for assistance. Assistance was and continued to be determined on the basis of established eligible populations, rather than the circumstance of poverty, homelessness or related disadvantage . Further, unlike European or North American

3 This included the power to provide invalid and old-age pensions; the provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 54 counterparts, the Australian system offered a flat rate, means tested regime which significantly curtailed eligibility and expenditure.

Over the 23 years following the Second World War and the Coalition Government, expenditure on social welfare remained relatively unchanged with respect to overall Government expenditure (Castles and Uhr 2002, 11). In contrast, the States and Territories legislated and enforced a number of anti-vagrancy laws and other anti-poverty regulations, such as anti-begging and public order laws, which continued to criminalise the homeless. Over this period the limited assistance that was available for the homeless was delivered by benevolent societies and religious groups, with scant support from state government funding, until the mid 1970’s.

Despite the lack of Commonwealth engagement with the emerging evidence of poverty and homelessness, some notice was taken by those working on the ground. Ignoring the fact that the 1961 national Census revealed that there were individuals and families living in some 45,000 occupied sheds and huts in Australia, in May 1965 the soon to become Prime Minister Harold Holt said The economic and social programmes of the Government have as an important objective the spread of prosperity through the community and a just sharing of national production…I cannot accept the implication that Australian standards in social welfare are low (Stubbs 1966, 1).

Writing in 1966, Stubbs cited the observations of Alan Jordan, head of the Hanover Centre in Melbourne, who reported to the Royal Commission on Supply and Consumption of Liquor in Victoria that there were some 5,000 homeless men within Melbourne each year, working and travelling and therefore temporarily invisible (Stubbs 1966, 81).

As noted by Castles and Uhr (2007, 108) the significant increase in expenditure during the 1972-1975 Labour Government largely compensated for the years in which social welfare had been at a standstill. Growth in expenditure did not occur again until the election of the Hawke Labour Government in 1983. Despite additional expenditure through the Hawke- Keating years, and a decrease during the Howard years, the fundamental limitations of the

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 55 social security system with respect to recognition of homelessness or poverty as a justification for income support did not effectively change 4.

The Social Security Review launched in 1986 by the then Minister Brian Howe, which lasted some two years, was charged with considering income support for families with children, workforce and social security issues and income support for older people. Through the two year period of the review a new language took hold which was to remain well into the twenty first century. With the emergence of ‘welfare dependence’ and ‘welfare cheat’ as part of the vernacular of parliamentary debate and in the popular media and academic discourse, such labels were able to effectively shape an image of the poor as being variously inferior, unmotivated, criminal and/or exploitative of the broader Australian community of taxpayers. While adopting a moral high ground in the debate of increasingly restrictive approaches to income support, the effective outcome was essentially punitive. The cumulative result of the review’s recommendations was the replacement of the concept of social security with that of welfare and the principle of entitlement to one of obligation.

Philip Mendes (2006) suggested that from a neo-liberal perspective welfare programs were viewed as producing dependency rather than relieving it. He argued further that this form of rationality saw dependence on income support in the same way as dependency associated with a range of socially unacceptable addictions and was a reflection of the unwillingness of individuals to embrace the norms and values that the community as a whole had embraced, such as self reliance. As a consequence of this way of thinking, the neo-liberal perspective is one in which income support should be no longer be considered an entitlement, but rather as a limited privilege, with a focus on ensuring that such individuals are not able to remain so dependent on community financial support.

Speaking to the Senate in October 1986, Senator Amanda Vanstone encapsulated this perspective in which she observed, “All of these welfare recipients have a limited income. They are all poor. A new identity has been forced upon them and they have become reliant upon the state for their most basic needs. This is a humiliating and dangerous position to put them in. They are becoming the children of the State...And so with the best of intentions, the state has paid out millions in welfare and without realising it, has created

4 Although the first Commonwealth Housing Commission was established in 1943 in response to perceived housing shortages, the 1945 Housing Agreement provided only for the rebate of rent for families on a basic wage and did not provide for assistance those who were unemployed or homeless.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 56 this new client state, with people trapped by the state with no future beyond the next welfare cheque.” (Commonwealth of Australia, Senate 1986, 3865)

A decade later, the then Minister for Family and Community Services, Joceyln Newman maintained this argument. In a paper presented to the Welfare Reform Group, the Minister argued that the incidence of welfare dependency had to be reduced (Newman, 1999).

Although the fact of living in poverty, manifested in no small extent by homelessness, remained outside the parameters of eligibility for income support, the quantum shift to obligation reflected a more significant force of alienation of the poor from the broader community. In real terms it brought into everyday discourse a badge of difference that became a currency for justifying increasing regulation. Significantly, the discourse is based on the view that solutions to the problem of the poor lies in correcting the behaviour and ameliorating the deficiencies of the poor. Poverty is ultimately a problem of the behaviour of the poor. Accordingly, eligibility for assistance must be made more restrictive and controlling, maintaining the historic grounding in the differentiation between the deserving and undeserving.

Despite a plethora of studies and reports, it was not until the 2004 Senate Community Affairs Report on poverty and financial hardship, “A hand up not a hand out: Renewing the fight against poverty ”, that the Australian Government acknowledged the link between poverty and homelessness, or the collective impact of homelessness on the capacity for social and economic participation or the failure of Government strategies to effectively make a difference.

Discovering Australia’s Homeless The word ‘homeless’ first appears in Australian Parliamentary debate and legislation, when the Homeless Persons Assistance Act (HPA) 1974 brought this terminology onto the national stage. The emergence of the use of the term itself is critical because it is the point at which a specific population emerges at the national level with a distinctive label other than by way of criminality. This had not previously been a feature of the Australian Government landscape. It did not have any force or effect on the continued enforcement of anti-vagrancy public conduct laws, which saw the ongoing arrest and imprisonment of the homeless poor .

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 57

In a policy speech in 1974, the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, foreshadowed a change in saying My Government has decided to introduce a program to help meet the material needs and raise the dignity of homeless men and women. Capital Grants will be made available over a three year period to voluntary agencies, local and statutory authorities for projects such as night shelters, hostels, flats, day centres and specialized clinics and centres. This is a program devised in response to a much neglected need: it will be of benefit to the young as well as the old. It will be of benefit to any person in immediate need: to the permanently homeless, to the deserted or disturbed woman and her children, to the aboriginal or teenager in want or distress, to the battered woman or the battered child, to the single parent – in short, to anyone without support or income (ALP Policy Speech, 1974).

The same year the Homeless Persons Assistance Program (HPAP) was enacted, offering funding to local governments and non-Government organisations for building shelters and providing beds as well as a meal subsidy for chronically homeless men and women. In introducing the Bill to Parliament, the Minister noted that it was intended to “provide both a reasonable standard of support and increased opportunity for homeless people, enabling them to obtain a place of dignity in the future of Australian society” (cited in DSS, 1978, 1). This represented a significant shift from the historical reliance on charitable organisations to the introduction of a partnership between Government and the charitable sector.

Despite this new approach, a Department of Social Security review of the program found that although the physical facilities and services provided were enhanced, the program had no impact on the social and economic status of the homeless people who were to benefit from it (DSS, 1978. 2, 64).

However, from this early inception, the Government’s response to homelessness remained based upon differentiating between the deserving and undeserving, mirroring the rationalities underpinning the logic for provision of income support.

In 1974 the first Commonwealth funding for women’s refuges was provided with the specific aim of establishing a crisis response for women and children escaping violence. Unlike HPAP, it was funded under the Health portfolio. In 1981 funding of this program was

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 58 allocated through block funding, with the States having discretion on the expenditure of such funds. In 1984 the Women’s Emergency Services Program (WESP) was created. However, again this program was a response not to homelessness per se, but rather a response to the strong advocacy by women’s groups to the issue of domestic violence.

The Family Support Services Scheme, piloted in 1978, provided funding to non-government, not-for- profit organisations to provide emergency accommodation and support services to ‘families in distress’. In the same year the Department of Social Security was asked to conduct a review of the HPAP. In reporting the review findings, significant limitations were identified. It reported that:

A program designed to improve the status of a disadvantaged group might aim to bring that group to parity with the rest of the population in respect of such things as rates of mortality, morbidity, functional handicap and unemployment, security of an adequate income, standard of accommodation, freedom from aggression and compulsion, and freedom of movement, association and expression. If achievement of those aims would represent solution of the problem of homelessness it has not been solved, and would not be solved even if the program were modified and expanded. The most that can be achieved by subsidization of welfare services is amelioration of the problem, keeping it within tolerable limits. Solutions would require change in the operation of much more fundamental institutions of society (DSS, 1978, 64).

Despite these findings, Australian Government action remained focused on the charity sector, providing funds for the delivery of a crisis response. The option to consider alternative actions which would ‘change the operation of much more fundamental institutions’ was not taken up.

The Henderson Inquiry into Poverty in 1975 largely ignored the homeless or homelessness. The Inquiry’s primary housing related recommendations were in relation to the role of rent assistance as tool for reducing the risk of after-housing poverty and to the maintenance of the primacy of home ownership and housing choice (Burke 1998, 294). Further, although the Sackville Enquiry into Homeless People and the Law (a specific research initiative within the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, 1976) acknowledged the impact of public attitudes on the criminalisation of the homeless, recommendations to repeal vagrancy and

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 59 drunkenness laws were predicated on the belief that there was no effective consequential change to individual behaviours as an outcome of such punitive measures. The belief that homelessness was a consequence of individual flaws continued to provide the raison d’ être for such deliberations (Burke 1998, 295).

By the 1980’s, difficult economic times characterised by rising interest rates, increasing private investment in housing, and escalating unemployment rates saw unprecedented demands for low cost housing, increasing costs and the diversification of the homeless population. In 1985 the Australian Government commissioned the Study of Homeless and Inadequate Housing, and in 1989 the Government was advised by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Report Our Homeless Children. Again in 1995 the Government commissioned the Report on Aspects of Youth Homelessness which asserted that the number of homeless young people (12-18 years of age) had doubled during the three year period between 1991 and 1994.

Despite the assertion of the increasing number of homeless people cited by the authors of each study, and the correlation between limited income and lack of low cost housing, this did not translate into a commitment to narrowing the gap between income support and real housing costs for those most marginalised. At the same time waiting lists for public housing continued to grow, the number assisted decreased, and emergency housing had a growing rate of unmet demand. As noted by Burke, both the Henderson Enquiry and the subsequent National Housing Strategy (1990) concerned themselves with the need to preserve the ability of middle income families to access home ownership and had little regard to the supply of low cost housing (Burke, 1998, 180).

Defining Australia’s Homeless Homelessness as a culturally defined concept takes on the meaning that is ascribed at a given time and society. It is then important to understand how the definition of ‘homeless’ emerged, and changed, as a specific population and the characteristics ascribed to it.

Because the Homeless Persons Assistance program (HPAP) became the first practical expression of Commonwealth concern and engagement with homelessness, it also presented the first attempt to define what was meant by the term. The HPAP defined a homeless person as: a) a person who has attained the age of 16 years and-

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 60

(i) Has no settled home and is in need of approved assistance ; or

(ii) Although having a settled home, is temporarily in urgent need of approved assistance ; or

b) A person in respect of whom a person referred to in paragraph (a) is qualified to receive an endowment under Part VI of the Social Services Act 1947

The ambiguous nature of this definition is evidenced by the lack of explanation of what constitutes a settled home, and the description of an approved assistance, as well as the arbitrary nature of the minimum age, suggesting that homelessness is not an issue of Government concern when it comes to younger people.

Subsequently the 1989 Burdekin Report, which presented the findings of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission inquiry into youth homelessness, expanded upon the HPAP by defining homelessness. It noted that homelessness is characterised as a lifestyle which includes insecurity and transience of shelter. It is not confined to a total lack of shelter. Further, many children experience a state of detachment from family and vulnerability to dangers, including exploitation and abuse broadly defined, from which the family normally protects a child (Burdekin 1989, 7).

The first Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) Act 1989 lacked any definition of homeless or homelessness. This gap was addressed some five years later by the adoption of a new definition in the 1994 SAAP Act. This new definition, which remained the basis of SAAP throughout its various iterations, specifies that:

a ‘person is homeless if, and only if, he or she has inadequate access to safe and secure housing’ and that exists only ‘if the only housing to which the person has access: (a) damages, or is likely to damage, the person's health; or (b) threatens the person's safety; or (c) marginalises the person through failing to provide access to: (i) adequate personal amenities; or (ii) the economic and social supports that a home normally affords; or (d) places the person in circumstances which threaten or adversely affect the adequacy, safety, security and affordability of that housing.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 61

Again, as a subjective definition, there was no substantive clarification of what constitutes such terms as home, security, safety or adequate. Similarly it has relied upon an implicit assumption of what constitutes accepted norms for adequate personal amenities and supports that a home affords. Chamberlain and Mackenzie laid the foundation for this approach when arguing that homelessness and inadequate housing are socially constructed, cultural concepts that only make sense in a particular community at a given historical population (how many with children, how many people on their own, the number of people with a long-term problem and so forth) and information on the geographical spread of the population (Chamberlain and McKenzie, 1992, 1). However this claim entails not only judgements, but also consensus, about what constitutes housing that meets these criteria. Using the notion of socially constructed beliefs about housing and adequacy, Chamberlain and McKenzie (1992) proposed a hierarchy or what might otherwise be considered an approach which seeks to describe degrees of homelessness. This includes:

Primary homelessness: Primary homelessness is used to describe people who lack conventional accommodation and is taken to include people living on the streets, sleeping in parks, squatting in derelict buildings, or using cars or railway carriages for temporary shelter.

Secondary homelessness: Secondary homelessness is the term used to describe people who move frequently from one form of temporary shelter to another. It includes people using emergency accommodation (such as hostels for the homeless or night shelters); teenagers staying in youth refuges; women and children escaping domestic violence (staying in women's refuges); people residing temporarily with other families (because they have no accommodation of their own); and those using boarding houses on an occasional or intermittent basis. 5

Tertiary homelessness : Tertiary homelessness is the label applied to people who live in boarding houses on a medium to long-term basis. Residents of private boarding houses do not have a separate bedroom and living room; they do not have kitchen and bathroom facilities of their own; their accommodation is not self-contained; they do not have security of tenure provided by a lease.

5 In the context of enumeration this can be considered inherently limited – as it is well recognised that people may move from between primary and secondary homelessness on a quite frequent basis – making the differentiation unreliable.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 62

This typology offered a methodology for allocating people into groups based not on individual or housing need, but rather on the basis of current housing arrangements. Primarily it provided a tool that could be employed for the purposes of classification and enumeration. As noted by Rose in Power and Subjectivity: Critical History and Psychology ‘the collection and aggregation of numbers participates in the fabrication of a ‘clearing’ within which thought and action can occur” (cited by Graham and Neu, 2004, 309). At the same time, the selection of subjects that are included has significant consequences for those who are excluded, whether or not this is intended (Graham and Neu, 2004, 308).

Counting the Homeless or Measuring Homelessness The counting of the homeless in the Australia has a relatively short history. In responding to a question on notice, the then Minister for Health in 1983, Dr N Blewett advised that,

There are no reliable estimates of the number of homeless persons in Australia. Researchers have found, particularly in relation to homeless youth, that rates of homelessness fluctuate markedly from time to time and, currently, there is insufficient data to gauge the nature or extent of those who are homeless. In recognition of this, my Department is considering ways of improving the supply of information about this group (Commonwealth of Australia, House of Representatives 1983, 106).

The 1985 census included, for the first time in a national population count, questions that were aimed at identifying the homeless population. The stated objectives were to maximise the population count and to provide policy makers with advice about the numbers and characteristics of homeless people. The first organised national attempt by the Australian Government to specifically enumerate the number of homeless people was in 1989. This was implemented by means of counting the number of people being assisted by Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) services on a specific night. This was followed in 1990 by a two-week census of those presenting to services. However, the Australian Government reported that due to a low participation rate by services and inconsistency in recording rendered the information collected of doubtful accuracy (Lindsay, 1993).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 63

Over the following five years an iterative process was employed to establish a national information strategy based specifically on collection of data by SAAP services. This approach generated very limited reliability, as it was only able to capture those accessing services, on an average night, at a particular time of the year (Norwood 1997; AIHW, 1996). A revised national data collection program for SAAP services was instituted in 1995, the aim of which was to generate greater consistency in the data recording and reporting process. The revised approach incorporated ongoing reporting on all clients assisted by a SAAP service (i.e. demographic and service details), bi-annual reporting of administrative data, annual reporting of unmet demand for a specified two week period, and the annual casual client data collection which records incidence of short term or one off assistance provided but not the number of individuals in receipt of such services.

The limitations of this approach were, and remain, that it seeks only to enumerate the number of people who present to the specific services funded under this program. This had the practical effect of creating of a new target group, which was not those who are homeless, but rather those who present for assistance, and are ‘deemed eligible’ for such assistance, according to the terms of being deserving. This is, then, a demand-based, or demand management, exercise. It does not, and cannot, measure the actual population of people who might otherwise be caught by the program definition but do not present for help, or those who are homeless but fail the eligibility or priority test.

Other factors impacting on the count are the geographic settlement patterns, the availability of SAAP services, and priorities determined by State and Territory Governments in terms of expenditure of SAAP funding. Because the relative priorities for expenditure are set by each State/Territory Government, there is a significant difference in, for example, the number of services responding to young people, to men or women, to families and the like. This in turn determines who is and is not counted. Accordingly, if there is no service to which a person may present because they are simply not a local priority, then they are unlikely to be picked up in a service based count. Given the considerable variability between States and Territories, this has a significant impact not only on who is able to be assisted, but equally who is not. To illustrate, if a single homeless woman who has not experienced domestic violence seeks assistance from a women’s refuge, she will be ineligible. She may be homeless, but ineligible for assistance by the refuge, whether or not there is capacity. Therefore she will be recorded (and not counted)

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 64

‘as turned away, ineligible’ – albeit homeless. If the same single homeless woman finds herself in a regional centre with no women’s service to which to present, she will not be counted at all.

The inclusion/ exclusion divide is produced not only by the broad program definition, but also by the way access is regulated through agency practice. The New South Wales Ombudsman noted in a 2004 report to the NSW Parliament (Barbour, 2004) that, contrary to program standards, SAAP services regularly excluded ‘significant groups’ such as people: • not willing to enter into a case management plan • who are unwilling or unable to pay for their accommodation, • who have been blacklisted by other agencies and who are unable to meet other restrictive policies of the agency • who use, are affected by, or dependent on drugs and or alcohol • who exhibit or previously exhibited challenge behaviours • with mental illness and / or disabilities including physical, intellectual or acquired brain injury • other eligibility restrictions set by the agency.

Mick was homeless when he applied to a SAAP agency in metropolitan Sydney. He was calling from a phone box in a different part of town. He was told he wasn’t eligible because he was out of the area. He couldn’t understand because as a homeless person he didn’t live in any area (Barbour 2004, 11).

In making recommendations, the New South Wales Ombudsman noted the need to move from a ‘culture of gate keeping to a culture of inclusion’ (Barbour 2004, 14). While the report acknowledges that SAAP cannot be ‘all things to all people’, the adoption of global exclusions on the basis of belonging to a particular group, is contrary to the principles of anti discrimination legislation. Importantly, it has the practical effect of further skewing the reliability of service receipt as a basis for either planning or assessing need. 6

6 The recent Queensland Government decision that all social housing programs should accept only those with the highest level of assessed need will in practice put in place a demand management process that excludes a large population of homeless or at risk of homelessness people from accessing any of the funded housing services. In this context eligibility criteria will exclude those who previously were considered part of the core target population of homeless.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 65

The 1991 Census introduced a new classification, ‘improvised home’. However it was not possible to differentiate between the reasons why a respondent may have recorded such a residence – that is, it was impossible to differentiate between holidaymakers and the homeless. The ABS ultimately concluded that this approach was ineffectual for planning purposes. However, nearly two hundred people over-rode the census question on ‘usual address’ to say they had none.

The definitions employed by collection agencies, as much as the tool for collection itself, continued to be the determining factor in who was enumerated, and who was not. Enumeration then is understood by those who are included, rather than those who are excluded (AIHW, SAAP National Data Collection Reports 1996-2001; Chamberlain, 1999). However, the limitations of the count, using any tool, have been more highlighted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Report 2006a, Demand for SAAP accommodation by homeless people, 2003-04 . The AIHW noted that as the major Government response for the homeless, SAAP is often the last resort for people who find themselves homeless or at risk of homelessness. The report further highlighted that the estimates of people accessing and turned away from SAAP do not reflect the total homeless population. For example, of the 99,900 people estimated to be homeless by the Australian Bureau of Statistics only some 14,350 were housed by a SAAP agency.

Given the substantial difference between the total number of homeless people estimated by the Census and the number of people accommodated by SAAP, a large proportion of the homeless population do not receive SAAP accommodation. The relatively small number of people with unmet requests for SAAP accommodation also indicates that many homeless people do not request SAAP accommodation. There is, therefore, a level of ‘hidden’ demand for SAAP accommodation which could include people who do not know how to access SAAP agencies, may not be located near a SAAP agency, or may have given up attempting to receive support from a SAAP agency (AIHW, 2006a: 4).

The way in which homelessness or the homeless have been defined and classified has effectively created a population who are subject to Government policy and who, through this policy, become assessed as eligible for services. This approach reflects a cultural framework based on a presumed consensus about what constitutes being housed, or

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 66 adequate housing. It can be explained simply as a service definition (Chamberlain 1996, 11).

In fact, Robinson (2003) challenged Chamberlain’s attempt to categorise scales of homelessness as obscuring the reality of iterative homelessness. While it is acknowledged that the Chamberlain framework recognises varying degrees of housing vulnerability, it fails to adequately capture the perpetual state of inadequate and tenuous housing, which characterises the recurring movement from various forms of insecure shelter or marginal accommodation.

However, the method of count is founded in a program and funding context which establishes limits based upon principles of inclusion and exclusion. The differentiation between the deserving and undeserving remain a feature of the criteria adopted in determining target populations and in the development of operational definitions used in the administration of Government and non Government programs for the homeless (e.g. Commonwealth/State Supported Accommodation Assistance Program, State Public Housing, Commonwealth Rental Assistance Scheme, Community Housing Guidelines). The method of defining and counting, and Governmental responses to the homeless, have hinged upon this differentiation.

Images of the Homeless – Making of the Other Inherent in the making of a governable population is the ascription of characteristics to people belonging to that population. While definitions of homelessness rely on the quality or nature of the housing situation 7, this is complemented by the attribution of distinctive and differentiating characteristics to homeless people, which set them apart from the broader population. The images (and the values which underpin such portrayals) of the homeless serve an important function in terms of the way the ‘problem of the homeless’ comes to be understood and justifies the types of judgements which are made.

The process of attribution is also a critical feature of the relationship between ‘subject and power’ and is inherent to the regulation of the population (both broadly and with respect to any specified group identified as a population). The creation of subjects through the labelling process enshrines normative or acceptable behaviour. It is then possible for the

7 Refer for example to definitions offered by Chamberlain, C. & MacKenzie, D. (1992)

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 67

State to adopt mechanisms of coercion ostensibly designed to promote self regulation, governing of one’s own behaviour in accordance with expectations of acceptable standards. Where there is a perception that an individual’s situation is a result of a failure to self regulate, the governmental (and community) response may range from paternalistic (as illustrated by the notion of case management), to punitive, to regulatory.

Throughout Australian history the dominant social, political, economic and cultural norm has hinged on an expectation that individuals should be self responsible, autonomous and enterprising in meeting their own needs. Poverty and homelessness then are viewed as a limitation of the individual, not social, economic or political structures. In this way the image of homeless people is reproduced as deficient, deviant or criminal (Burke, 1998; Sackville, 2004; Mendes, 2006). Government policy and technologies are then designed and directed to regulate, monitor, reform or ‘manage’ homeless people. Vagrancy laws, created and administered by the State, Territories and local governments established a crime associated with being without means of support. However state and local laws limiting use of public space, public drinking and moving on laws have criminalised the homeless before the term homeless became part of social or political language.

Looking at Parliamentary debate over the nearly two decades of 1980-2000, there has been a recurring portrayal of the homeless as being ‘the problem’. For example, in addressing the presence of young people living on the streets, Representative J. Brown speaking in the House of Representatives (April 1981) noted, “They are homeless, rejected, unloved, lacking family support, despairing and in most cases unemployable. ... I refer to child prostitution, drug taking and youth alcoholism. These kids have become lost in a sea of hopelessness, despair and loneliness” (Commonwealth of Australia, House of Representatives 1981, 1378).

Some 15 years later, the Minister for Family Services, J Moylan in speaking about homeless young people at the National Conference on Homelessness, referred variously to “tormented lives”, “rebuilding fractured lives”, and the need to access support services to “assist them to join the community as self-supporting contributing members of our society”…and case management as enabling individuals to ‘plan ways of moving to self reliance” (Australian Parliamentary Library, 1997-1998, Bills Digest).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 68

Again, in 2001 the Commonwealth Advisory Committee, in Working towards a National Homelessness Strategy argued the need to dispel myths of personal flaws amongst the homeless, yet at the same time drew direct linkages between homelessness and alcohol, drug use, mental health, difficult behaviours, criminality, ethnicity and disability.

The print and broadcast media also can significantly influence community and government perceptions of homeless people. The nature of the images and messages that are presented may be shaped by both the motivation of the journalist who is telling the story and the intention of others to use the media to its own advantage (Crinall 2006, 62; Rossiter 2001.).

For example, an agency providing assistance to homeless people might deliberately use the media to garner public and private funding through stories which shock and will move others to action. This is encapsulated in the perspective articulated by the Salvation Army as reported by Minogue (2002, 14), “Salvation Army believes that there is a balance between the two needs. The homeless person is talking about their needs, their crisis. However the Salvation Army needs to put “a spin” on homelessness to enforce the message that their clients are not trying to abuse the system. The Agency while trying to put across the truth of things is also trying to get across to politicians and the public that their clients have genuine needs”.

The media itself has a record of adopting language and photography that promote images of the homeless as a marginalised population of others. Again, to illustrate the time leading up to and through the Burdekin Enquiry into Youth Homelessness, the Sydney Morning Herald offered the reader “Youth Homelessness Lives in the shadows and sleeps in doorways.” (March 31, 1988, 54) and nearly a year later under the headline “Feral, Destitute and Deluded”, reporter L Simpson observed “The homeless kids in inner Sydney streets are not always the children of poor disadvantaged homes. Most of these are dangerous artful dodgers from middle class families...describing their chilling street lore and survival tactics” (February 25 th , 1989, 81).

Although it is arguable that the media has adopted a counter balance in its stories, this is rarely without a sting. For example, the Sydney Morning Herald in reporting the release of the report Australia’s Homeless Youth had an accompanying photograph of young people

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 69 sitting against a street art painted wall. The caption read, “Lost generation … a young man hanging out at a Surry Hills squat inhales fumes from a can while his girlfriend looks on” (April 8, 2008, 3). There is no evidence the subjects of this photograph are themselves homeless, nor necessarily poor – it does however capture the stereotypical image.

Like the image of the skid row alcoholic white male and the stereotypical unkempt bag lady pushing a cart filled with her belongings, the dominant image of alcohol, drugs, and abuse have shaped community perceptions of the homeless young people as idle, self indulgent, and criminal (Crinall, 2001). Importantly, by breaking perceived norms, they are depicted as dangerous, and are perceived as being an inherent risk to the community.

The consequence of the various motivations of Government, of the media, of service providers and advocates, is a competition for the space in which homeless people are depicted. In seeking to create an image, whether photographically or descriptively, the outcome is not only a objectification of the homeless, but also a reinforcement of the perception of ‘other’, in which the homeless are variously portrayed as pathetic, damaged, victimised or threatening to be feared as an inherent risk to the community. Accordingly, such images also contribute to the logical conclusion that having failed at self governing, the deserving should be given the colloquial hand up, and the undeserving regulated.

Homeless as Research Subjects The focus of government funded and academic research on the epidemiology of the homeless serves to underscore the discourse of deviance. The implicit assumption which such investigations are based upon is that it is possible to produce the data required to demonstrate that homelessness, as a condition, and the homeless as a population group, is consistent with such symptomology as mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, criminal behaviours and ‘complex problems’ such as emotional and physical abuse, gambling and relationship breakdown. As a result it is concluded that the homeless require rehabilitation to enable them to re-enter the broader community of housed and employed citizens. This discourse starts from the premise that homelessness is a result of such deviance, rather than perhaps an outcome of being poor.

A search of Government funded research between 1980-2005 with respect to homelessness and the homeless reflects the ongoing emphasis on understanding homelessness as an outcome of the individual, that is there is some individual

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 70 characteristics which render them unable, or unwilling, to become housed. For example, during this period Australian Housing Urban Research Institute (AHURI) commissioned studies, with the support of Australian Government funding, to examine linkages and implications for government policy on homelessness and housing assistance and heroin use, prison release, age (older people and younger people), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, mental illness, disability, family breakdown, and employment. Further it focused on such specific issues as provision of housing as a disincentive to employment, homeless careers and iterative homelessness.

This then leads to the question if the homelessness and the homeless have been accepted from a ‘commonsense’ perspective as an inevitable outcome of individual failure, how might the adoption of a different perspective, say, considering homelessness as being more clearly linked to economic, political and social forces, is a reflection of the broader political ideology and frameworks for governing. This question will be explored in the next chapter, Positing Causation for Homelessness.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 71

Chapter 4 – Positing Causation for Homelessness – Intended and Unintended Consequences Defining the problem as the problem of ‘the homeless’ allows moderately liberal communities to ‘solve’ the problem of extreme poverty and discrimination by reinventing the almshouse in the form of mass shelters (Blasi 1994, 569)

Introduction Although people who are homeless have historically been described as deficient but deserving (aged, disabled), lazy and/or of a criminal inclination, interest in researching the causal factors for homelessness as a concern for contemporary Australian Government policy emerged in the latter half of the twentieth century. It is for this reason that this chapter examines the way in which explanations for homelessness have evolved since the 1970’s. However, this examination requires positioning such explanations in the context of the dominant social, economic and political environment. The aim is not to assert a special knowledge of causation, but rather to trace how causes of homelessness have been promulgated and the way in which this has influenced and been influenced by Government policy and practice.

The volume of studies, articles and inquiries produced over the last four decades have presented polar views of the underlying reasons for the steadily increasing number and changing profile of people who experience homelessness. In one camp sit the proponents of the view that homelessness, and particularly chronic homelessness, is a consequence of the deviance, disability, moral or flawed nature of the individual. For those adopting the opposing view, the incidence of homelessness is grounded in structural factors such as the economy, the nature of employment options and conditions, the increasing incidence of poverty and the quality of the housing climate. More recently a new convention has emerged in which there is an apparent attempt to balance the individual and structural perspectives of causation. This argument asserts that structural factors create the conditions within which homelessness will occur, personal problems make people more vulnerable to such factors, and the high concentration of people with personal problems within the homeless population is explained by this vulnerability to structural forces.

However each of these attempts at attribution has distinct limitations. An illustration of such limitations is that of the woman who experiences homelessness following a

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 72 breakdown in her family relationship. Depending on the view point being asserted, the cause may be attributed to the individual (a micro problem of family dysfunction) or a reflection of social changes associated with the normalization of divorce, the rejection of family violence or a consequence of trends in housing marketplace (public or private) and therefore a manifestation of structural change (Fitzpatrick 2005, 4, 14).

It is essential to appreciate that Government’s responses are decisively a function of how it understands the causes of homelessness. Explanations of homelessness based on notions of individual deficits, social dysfunction and deviance will lead to solutions grounded in technologies of rehabilitation, treatment and management. In contrast, solutions which address structural causes will be employed where homelessness is understood as a consequence of factors such as unemployment trends, performance of the housing market and discrimination.

To appreciate how the Government has come to understand the cause(s) of homelessness, and the how this has, and continues to, translate into Government policy, it is necessary to explore the role and influence of the expert voice. It is through a reliance on the advice of its nominated experts, that the actions of Government derive their credibility. It is for this reason that the work of the expert adviser can be seen to be part of, and contributes to, dominant economic and social values. Further, it is the symbiotic relationship between the expert advisor and the political system that has a crucial influence on the way a problem is understood, and consequentially for the methods employed in response.

The expert, then, can be seen to be directly complicit in the shaping of Government policy and programs by generating evidence, which forms the basis for alleging the ‘truth’ of causation. There is an implicit if not explicit alliance between Government and those who have been responsible for the production of knowledge, which enables the exercise of power. It is this alliance that has allowed the research agenda to become an effective tool of Government; and for this reason the relationship is not without bias.

Governmentality and the Role of Knowledge The political rationalities of Government form the basis for understanding and representing reality. For example, positing homelessness experienced by young people escaping family violence as a ‘youth’ problem enables their situation to be re-oriented from one of a

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 73 legitimate claim such as being a victim of an abuse. Accordingly, rationalities have unique characteristics reflected in language, values and relationship between Government and those that are governed (Rose and Miller 1992, 179). These include such values as social justice, individual responsibility, wealth and success. Importantly, the same terminology employed by different governments can have quite different meanings and produce quite different outcomes dependent upon the values and philosophy of the respective dominant interests and context (Jamrozik 2001, 66). However, citing Foucault, Hindess highlighted that despite such differences there is a consistent concern with ‘the way in which the conduct of individuals or of groups may be directed…To govern, in this sense, is to structure the possible field of action of others, or indeed, of oneself” (Hindess 2005, 392).

For example, in the conservative (economic rationalist) tradition, values such as individualism, self help, competition and entrepreneurialism are dominant. As a social philosophy, activities such as welfare and housing are not highly valued, are judged to be non-productive and are likely to be minimalist in nature. Alternatively, the neo-liberal model (corporatist) as described by Burke (1994, 13) balances a concern for the importance of the market against the need for a safety net for the most disadvantaged and the protection of universal rights. Values of community, social partnership and citizenship are characteristic of this model. In applying these two frameworks, it is suggested that the conservative rationalist would pose the problem as one of homeless people whereas the neo-liberal rationalist is more likely to see the problem as being one of homelessness.

The adoption of new euphemisms within Government discourse provides a useful marker for changes in the policy agenda and the rationalities which underpin such change. For example, the 1980’s saw the emergence of the belief in the superiority of a market economy and the linking of the term welfare (e.g. welfare housing, welfare payments) with undesirable types of dependency, creating a new reality in which such terms became synonymous. At the same time, a new terminology took hold, and welfare housing morphed to social housing. The language of self-help and responsibilities replaced that of ‘needs’ with programs designed to offer a ‘safety net’ reducing the role of Government to a minimalist one (Jacobs and Manzi 1996, 554-5).

Social values are not limited to fields of social policy, community or welfare programs. Economic, administrative and governance policies have social values inherent within them,

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 74 even though they may not be expressed explicitly or in such terms. For example, Australia’s traditional housing and taxation policies which have been designed to support home ownership may be seen as economic policies, but they also have implicit judgments about those unable to achieve such financial status. Similarly, the term ‘ affordability’ (particularly with respect to housing and the housing crisis), which first appeared in Government debate in the 1990’s has no precise definition or meaning, and is open to quite different interpretations in practice. One might ask, affordable to whom, in what manner, and at what cost? Despite the ambiguity of meaning of ‘affordability’, the term has grown to have an intrinsic alignment with the Government housing agenda and to have a specific meaning with respect to the market place and monetary policy (Jacobs and Manzi 1996, 556).

It is for this reason that Foucault asserted that: Truth is a thing of this world: it is produced only by virtue of multiple forms of constraint. And it induces regular effects of power. Each society has its regime of truth, its ‘general politics’ of truth – that is, the types of discourse it accepts and makes function as true; the mechanisms and instances that enable one to distinguish true and false statements; the means by which each is sanctioned; the techniques and procedures accorded value in the acquisition of truth; the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true. (Foucault 1994, 131)

That which is accepted as knowledge is largely determined by the dominant values and rationalities of the time. Knowledge refers to more than information or ideas. It is inclusive of “the vast assemblage of persons, theories, projects, experiments and techniques that has become such a central component of government” (Rose and Miller 1992, 177) .

The researcher, academic or practitioner has a significant influence on the knowledge upon which Government relies to determine and justify the techniques that are used in defining and responding to problems. By offering oneself as the expert, (whether a social scientist, economist or practitioner etc.) there is some claim to a specific realm of knowledge which renders such knowledge with a specific power (Hartman 1992, 484). Accordingly, the dominant political discourse and tools of Government are fundamentally linked to the power, knowledge and influence of the expert. Further, the alliance between Government and the institutions from which experts are drawn is shaped by the legitimacy ascribed to

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 75 them, and the way in which funding and resources enable this relationship to function effectively (Rose and Miller 1992, 177). (It is important to acknowledge, however, that the experts to whom Government will listen are likely to have a shared world view with the exclusion of those who may have a dissenting perspective.)

Wond (2007) draws on Foucault’s work Discipline and Punish in describing this association in terms of a mutually reinforcing relationship. He asserts that power produces knowledge and such knowledge in turn produces power effects, generating a symbiotic relationship between those who produce knowledge and those who would use it as a basis of power. In this way power creates the condition in which knowledge is able to be produced (Wond 2007, 3). This has the consequent affect of stifling other ways of thinking, creating a hegemonic knowledge base. Jacobs and Manzi (1996, 551) describe this in terms of the way in which decisions, non decisions and preclusion of issues can be achieved through an ability to set the parameters for the policy agenda. This requires the examination of the methods by which ideas are attributed credibility and the way in which different interests contribute to the generation of evidence that is used by Government to justify the actions which it takes.

Similarly, research, through the manner in which it is funded, the institutions in which research is undertaken and the questions that are asked, is a product of the dominant discourse. Since the 1970’s there has been a growing reliance by academics and academic organisations on public research dollars. Whether on a contractual basis, through the purchase of service (consultancies) or through government controlled research fund providers, research funding is now antithetical to the notion of independent social research. This in turn frames (or limits) what is researched, how it is researched and ultimately contributes to the generation of knowledge to support that discourse.

Evidence Based Policy and Positing Causation Although counting of the homeless can be traced back to the 1300’s, the use of statistical evidence by Governments was firmly entrenched by the 19 th century (Porter 1986, 27). However, it wasn’t until early in the 21 st century that the new language of ‘evidence based policy’ emerged in the United Kingdom (Marston, 2003). Although the notion of statistics as a factor in Government technologies and tools, particularly in the physical and social sciences had a strong precedence, it was the use of this terminology which created a new

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 76 brand to a pre-existing argument. The claim to the use of evidence base needs to be understood as a technology by which Government is able to suggest that there is a scientific base by which decisions are made and policy formulated and as such is both neutral and accountable. As described by Doherty, “The notion that public policy is evidence driven is itself a reflection of an ideology, the ideology of scientism” (Doherty 2000, 179-180). It is relevant, therefore to briefly consider in a broader perspective the way in which various factors impact on the generation and use of ‘evidence’ in the policy making process.

While the use of evidence in the physical sciences, and particularly medicine, formed an important precedent in setting clinical practice, the expansion to the social sciences was seen in the United Kingdom as a tool by which to modernise policy making (Marston and Watts, 2003). At the same time, Trinder asserted that a concern for ensuring value for money and an emphasis on effectiveness and efficiency underpinned the increasing dominance of a managerialist approach to Government. This in turn fostered the interest in evidence based policy, offering a technocratic logic that was a comfortable fit with the new managerialism and a basis for resource rationing (O’Dwyer, Trinder and Reynolds 2000, 19) .

Accordingly, Marston warned that the terminology of evidence based policy needs to be understood as a technology of power by which particular knowledge is accorded the weight of being a ‘truth’. This also involves identifying those who are positioned to be accorded the power to be recognised as determining what constitutes ‘the truth’ for the purposes of both decision and policy making (Marston and Watts 2003, 145). By being accorded the recognition as an authority to speak the truth, such authority flows onto the weight accorded to the evidence provided. In this way policy making and research interact with values and vested interests in the policy outcomes (Marston and Watts 2003, 146). Further, Marston cautioned that there are implicit assumptions which are important determinants of the questions that are asked, the assumptions about what claims or evidence are accorded legitimacy, and the evidence that may be discounted as a consequence of such assumptions. For example, in an environment in which home ownership is assumed to be the most desirable form of tenure, housing research has been largely oriented toward private sector and market place issues whether in terms of affordability, supply or management.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 77

O’Dwyer noted that evidence is one factor but not necessarily the most influential, impacting on policy making. Public opinion, Government values and ideology, political goals, and power will contribute to not only the use of evidence, but also the type of evidence that is used (Marston 20004, 11). Citing Doherty, O’Dwyer acknowledges that ideology is a significant influence on policy, and acts as a filter as to the evidence which is considered by policy makers (O’Dwyer, Trinder and Reynolds 2000, 180).

Similarly, Weiss identified what she called the four I’s which form part of the decision making process, whether in terms of policy or action. These are ideology (values), interests (both individual and organisational), institutional norms and practices (the way people/ organisations work) and prior information (which shapes the general framework or way of thinking that individuals bring to the consideration of new evidence). Weiss describes these as the ‘formal rivals to the primacy of evidence’ (Weiss 2001, 286).

One critical argument which emerged from O’Dwyer’s review of evidence based policy literature is the extent to which the production of evidence is shaped by the nature of contract research commissioned by the funding body. Similarly, funding for independent research through the variety of research bodies which are Government funded is determined largely on the basis of existing policy priorities. For example, it is Australian and State Governments, as fund providers, which determine the priorities for the Australia Housing and Urban Research Institute research funding. This, then, places a significant limitation on the nature of evidence that is likely to be produced. Curtain (2000) refers to a ‘monopsony’ for new policy ideas, that is the Government becomes, through a variety of channels, the singular purchaser of research and the production of evidence to meet Government demands.

This view is supported by Allen (2005), who argued that the generation of knowledge through social research is grounded in contract funding which determines what is researched and the need to satisfy contract funding. This then creates two pressures, that of the academic or research institution and that of the fund provider. Such funded research inevitably is overseen by steering groups made up of carefully selected interests who have the delegated power to ‘steer’ contract researchers, placing the researcher in essentially a ‘subservient role’ (Allen 2005, 995-997). This outlook was also expressed by Curtain, who

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 78 argued that there is a practical risk of the fund provider and steering committee influencing the research to generate what he describes as ‘acceptable outcomes’ (Curtain 2000, 2). Given the number of matters to be considered (such as political values, Government goals, stakeholder interests and unknown information held by policy makers), a consequence is the possibility that the ‘evidence that fits’ and which supports the dominant concerns may ultimately advise decision making.

In an ideological environment in which individual responsibility, and home ownership is the ideal, the role of Government in housing has rarely been viewed as an appropriate or primary concern for public policy or action. In contrast, when support for and promotion of the private sector has been a fundamental value of Government, public policy which supports this sector has been an important feature of the Government’s housing perspective. Accordingly, it would be more accurate to say that evidence which is consistent with such values and interests advises policy making rather than making claim to evidence based policy.

A number of questions then emerge. To what extent do research and the production of evidence reflect stakeholder interest to the exclusion of alternative arguments? To what extent does authority as an expert accrue to those who produce evidence consistent with dominant political perspectives? To what extent do the research agenda and the nature of research questions determined by funding arrangements serve as a tool for determining the evidence that will be produced?

Language and Governmentality Language is a critical factor in creating a reality and interpretation of experience. It is through the use of language that values and judgments are made inherent to the message being communicated. The creation of labels and terminologies has the force of portraying a kind of truth (Wright, 1993; Gans, 1995; Crinall, 2001. 2006; Kyle, 2005; Dean and Hindess, 1998; Marston, 2000).

The use of language to create a population as the locus of problematisation creates a basis for understanding. This is best achieved through the creation of labels. Ultimately the legitimacy of any label is achieved through its use by those who can lend it credibility such as academics, those who have an established authority as experts and by those with the

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 79 political power to direct action. The creation of a label has two important utilities. The first of these is to create a population group and the second is to enable the construction of a population which can be portrayed as homogeneous and amenable to counting, and therefore to being acted upon; that is, to exercise power in a manner that targets a population as a whole (Gans, 1995).

From the perspective of social policy and the exercise of power, the application of negative language, labels and images of people who are poor generally and who are experiencing homelessness is consistent with the creation of a deviant identity. This in turn is consistent with the exercise of disciplinary power which focuses on the individual and interventions which are directed to normalizing the individual.

Typologies that attempt to classify homelessness and terminology employed to describe a “trajectory to and through homelessness” similarly have the power to reassign meaning of commonly understood language from one context to another, carrying with it embedded meanings and values. That is, by applying language that has particular accepted connotations, it becomes possible to shape discourse to a prevailing rationality. By assigning the label of homeless career as a method of description, it carries a universally accepted notion of choice and purpose (Kendig, Paris and Anderson, 1987; McKenzie and Chamberlain, 2003). There is a consequential implication that suggests that homelessness is indeed a choice and a way of life (Fopp, 2007). This can be said to apply equally to such phrases as pathways to homelessness, or other euphemisms, which have achieved no small amount of currency in the idiom of the research and service provider community. Language becomes a means by which a particular identity is created and a type of subject can be portrayed in a manner which is consistent with the dominant discourse. This portrayal is an essential part of the construction of the problem and the legitimacy of the methods used to eliminate or alleviate the problem (Marston 2000, 351).

It is important therefore to recognise the identity, attitudes and explanations for the experience of poverty which were inherited as part of the social, economic, and political discourse of Australia and how this has influenced the 20th century response to homelessness. This inheritance includes a conventional belief in the inevitability of inequality between the rich and poor. As highlighted in the Main Report of the Henderson Inquiry into Poverty, “poverty in Australia was inseparable from inequalities firmly

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 80 entrenched in our social structure. Inequalities of income and wealth reinforce and are reinforced by inequalities of educational provision, health standards and care, housing conditions, employment conditions and prospects, and access to legal structures” (Henderson 1975, viii).

Described as ‘authors of their own poverty, the first 75 years of Australian social welfare policy continued to be grounded in a belief in the fundamental inadequacy of the poor and the importance of avoiding any social or economic dependency on the Government (Mendelson 1979, 34). The identity of the poor was inscribed in the language of pauperism and vagrancy, and truancy and delinquency, caused not least by laziness, lack of self discipline and moral deficiency. As a consequence, responses to poverty in general, and homelessness in particular, were constructed in terms of charity - with the individual reliant on the good will of others. Further such philanthropic responses are linked with the notion of the rehabilitation of the person (Reynolds, 2007).

This is more than simply historic. In the Weekend Australian, October 18-19, 2008, a discussion of income quarantining included the following point:

Compulsory income quarantining should be imposed on all welfare recipients - indigenous and non-indigenous…with a rigorous process provided for well behaved people to ‘opt out’, according to a member of the expert panel assigned to assist the review of the NT indigenous intervention (Karveles 2008, 12).

The influence of this traditional depiction of poverty and of the poor, which are part of the Australian political and social discourse, is similarly visible in the array of Government funded studies of homelessness. Between 1973-2008 there were in excess of sixty Government commissioned reviews, studies and reports, academic research and practitioner reports, each offering explanations for the increasing levels of homelessness, profiling those experiencing homelessness, and asserting weight to a range of individual and structural factors which are classified as being causal drivers or triggers of homelessness. Most recently the 2008 National Green Paper, Which Way Home, was commissioned by the then newly elected Rudd Government to provide specific program strategies to address homelessness.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 81

The Green Paper offered no methodological framework by which the options were derived, nor were there any implicit or explicit linkages with such structural issues as housing or poverty. Rather, the rationale for the various options remained firmly grounded in a discourse of individual ‘need’. Nearly thirty years after Mendelson’s assessment of social welfare in Australia, it would seem that the preferred discourse remained grounded in the notions of ‘fixing up’ the individual. The Green Paper was then followed up with the delivery of the White Paper, The Road Home , designed to “address the causes of homelessness and provides a framework for preventing homelessness in the first place” (Homelessness Taskforce, 2008, ii). Whilst considerable support has been voiced by those working in the ‘homeless industry’ for the commitment to both housing and social services, there has been a resounding silence about the lack of strategies to address the fundamental challenge of absolute poverty, which remains a silent partner in homelessness.

A Period of Economic and Social Change The election of the Whitlam Labour Government in 1972 brought with it a relatively new interest by the Australian Government in questions of the wellbeing of the community and social and economic disadvantage more specifically. In this environment, a Working Party was established by the Minister of Social Security, Bill Hayden, in February 1973, to consider the needs of homeless men and women and to recommend actions to be taken. In reporting its findings, the Working Party adopted what might be described generously as a paternalistic viewpoint, suggesting that:

Most homeless men and women, at least in the earlier part of their careers, are sane, of normal intelligence and in reasonably good health…Very few see themselves as having deliberately rejected normal standards of behaviour. However, people do adjust themselves to the condition of homelessness. It becomes normal for them, and they no longer expect to return to settled lives (Working Party 1973, 13-14).

In making its recommendations for action, the Working Party (1973, 2) noted that the “emphasis in programmes for homeless people should be on ‘care’ primarily as the extent to which individual homeless persons can be ‘rehabilitated’ is limited (and that Shelter employment should be available more liberally to homeless people on the basis of their being socially handicapped “ (my emphasis)). Further, the Working Party recommended

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 82 that public health services should accept homeless people and “finance should be made available to public hospitals and mental health services to assist in the establishment of special clinics for hard core derelicts and other homeless groups and to other organisations for small detoxification units” (Working Party 1973, 2).

The Committee was unwilling to assert any specific causes, and in fact took some care in avoiding any such claims. It found that mental illness and alcoholism were neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of homelessness. Similarly while acknowledging that family breakdown may be a factor, this was also not universal. Finally, it found that being arrested and being jailed for petty crimes contributed inappropriately to problematic homelessness rather than being an outcome of it.

This might be charitably described as a compassionate consideration of people who are homeless, to the extent of conceding that people who become homeless were at some point ‘normal’. It is, however, tempered with a not so subtle suggestion that people who experience homelessness are inherently different and separate from the mainstream community, with allowances for such differences.

Over this same period, two significant reports were commissioned by successive Governments. In 1972 (immediately prior to the national election) the McMahon Government commissioned the Inquiry into Poverty in Australia to be led by Ronald Henderson. The Henderson Inquiry was framed by the historic wage-welfare principle; that was the basis for Government’s core strategy in addressing poverty. It was felt that by ensuring that minimum wages were adequate to meet basic essential costs of living poverty would be averted. However, this core strategy did not transfer to setting benefit levels for those reliant on Government income support, including the unemployed.

Although the Whitlam Government extended the terms of reference for the Henderson Inquiry to consider a broader range of matters relevant to poverty and its impacts, this did not include consideration of housing issues. Nonetheless the Henderson’s final report spoke to the significant impact of housing costs on poverty, as well as placing a strong argument for recognition of the relationship between structural aspects of the economy and poverty. Despite the fact that it was not within its specific terms of reference, the Inquiry reported that 10.7% of households were very poor or rather poor before housing

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 83 costs and after housing costs 17.9% were in this financial situation. This problem was exacerbated by the fact that public housing authorities were unable to cope with housing needs of the poor and only a small proportion of people who were below the poverty line were in public housing. Even though this analysis contributed to greater targeting of State/Territory public housing to those on low income, the report had no impact on the broader issue of the decreasing supply of such housing.

Concurrent with the Henderson Inquiry, the Australian Government Social Welfare Commission retained Lynne Foreman in 1975 to undertake a comparative analysis of legislation relevant to children and families, excluding legislation which was concerned with adoption and Commonwealth legislation dealing with social welfare. Foreman’s report found that “nowhere in Australian law is there a clear enunciation of what the rights and responsibilities of the States and Commonwealth are with respect to child and family welfare. Nor is there a readily accessible overview of the basis for regulating parental rights. Further, it is difficult to extract from legislation and case law a simple statement of what the legal rights of parents and children are” (Social Welfare Commission, 1975, 88). The study confirmed that State and Territory child protection legislation is oriented to responding to matters of risk to the child, and does not articulate any role in preventing or responding to family breakdown or dysfunction. And in more specific terms, Foreman noted that “the element of social control is directed at the child” (Social Welfare Commission, 1975, 88). To address this inadequacy, the Australian Family Law Act 1975 was enacted to clearly articulate the legal and moral responsibility of families to support and shelter their children up to at least 18 years of age. This provision was to become particularly important in successive years in the light of growing public and Government debate over youth homelessness. 8

Despite the 1973 Working Party on Homeless Men and Women Report , and the Henderson Inquiry into Poverty, neither homelessness, nor its causes, was of substantive concern to the respective Governments of the 1970’s. The economic downturn, the decline in the labour market and increasing demand for Government financial assistance became Government’s primary interest.

8 Arguably it is the issue of children protection which has been used to justify the Northern Territory intervention, although ostensibly this 1975 opinion would suggest it is a state/territory responsibility rather than Commonwealth .

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 84

Although the recession was felt internationally, for Australia the problem of unemployment was unprecedented since the end of World War II. With a national unemployment rate of 0.2% in 1950, unemployment rarely reached 2% in the following two decades (Borowski 1984, 31). From the start of the economic downturn in 1974, the adult unemployment rate continued to grow, reaching over 6% at the turn of the decade and over 10% by 1983. However, it was young people who most felt the impact. With unemployment at 3% in the early 1970's, the rates among young people, particularly those 15-18, rose consistently over succeeding years, reaching 13% in 1979 (Borowski 1984).

The second economic downturn in the early 1980’s contributed to a continuing high level of unemployment, escalating levels of inflation and decreasing housing affordability. At the same time there was a growing visibility of the impact of the economic downturn on young people, both unemployed (with some 23% of teenagers and 15% of young adults were unemployed by 1983) and increasingly homeless. As the level of unemployment rose, there were increasingly vocal attacks and vilification of the unemployed and particularly young people. The term ‘dole bludger’ first appeared in the Bulletin in 1976: ‘ A genuine dole bludger, a particularly literate young man ... explained that he wasn’t bothering to look for work anymore because he was sick and tired of being treated like a chattel’ (Australian National Dictionary, 2009).

As outlined by Tomlinson (1982), from the reference to 'work shy lion tamers' and 'dole bludgers' by Government Ministers Bill Hayden and Clyde Cameron, subsequent Governments from Fraser, through Hawke and Keating, continued their criticism in line with the growing numbers of unemployed, and particularly young people. Headlines in the press, such as the Sydney Morning Herald’s “ Feral, desperate and deluded ” (Simpson 1989, 81), contributed to growing public images of young people as ‘the problem’. In fact, despite the significant impact of the recession on the community as a whole, young people remained the unfortunate beneficiaries of growing criticism.

The highly visible number of young people living homeless, and regular negative commentary by the press feeding public opinion, contributed to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare investigation of the causes of, the problems associated with, and effect on Australian society of homeless youth, resulting in the 1982 Homeless Youth Report . Despite its terms of reference, the Committee avoided making any specific claims

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 85 of causation. Rather, the Committee observed an apparent vulnerability of young people to homelessness as a result of certain conditions such as family breakdown, unemployment, limited skills and the like. (Senate Standing Committee 1982, 12) However, care was taken to differentiate between what may be viewed as a consequence versus a cause. This included recognising the consequences of a range of environmental factors like changing family structure and limited employment opportunities which disrupted the historically smooth transition by young people from school to work. Acknowledging the impact of unemployment on young people, and the lack of access to housing, the Committee asserted that:

it would be impossible for any young person to live independently on $36 a week and also that it would be very difficult to live on $58.10 a week unless living in a group situation...However to simply raise unemployment benefits to the recommended levels, would not in the Committee’s view, be of any long term assistance to unemployed homeless youth. In addition the cost to revenue would be prohibitive. Even more importantly such a policy would have a destabilising effect on our entire wage structure, particularly the level of payment to apprentices and on other benefit payments. The Committee does not dispute the financial needs of homeless unemployed youth, but it does have grave concerns as to how additional financial assistance should be given to these young people. (Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare 1982, 60)

This assessment offered an unambiguous illustration of the growing ascendancy of the economic rationalist discourse that would continue to dominate over the subsequent two decades. The Committee concluded that families have an obligation to provide for children until age of 18. In reaching this conclusion the Committee noted that when family support breaks down or is non-existent

both the government and community have a clear responsibility to provide the necessary support for the young person until such time as he or she is able to make the final transition to full independent living. Indications for intervention at any other stage by government are not all clear cut and therefore it cannot be taken that assistance will be automatic and unconditional (Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare 1982, 10).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 86

In addition to conceding that family breakdown and unemployment were major factors associated with youth homelessness, the Committee also noted that there was increased demand for low cost housing and applications for public housing in an environment in which there had been a steady decrease in public housing stock. Despite recognising the consequences of these environmental factors for the previously smooth transition from school to work, it also concluded with a warning that young people should not expect the community to provide support if they wanted to become independent prior to securing full time employment.

Further, the Committee noted that “homeless youth are part of the community and their right to public housing should be recognised. However, the needs of one group should always be seen in the context of the needs of all other groups. While hard and fast rules cannot be established regarding the setting of priorities, broad guidelines are nonetheless frequently adopted. For example, it is accepted that low income families should receive preference over homeless youth when it come to the allocation of low cost public housing” (Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare 1982, 10).

The underlying concern expressed in this report was less one of causes or consequences of structural issues, but rather on reframing responses back to the family and the young people themselves. Although acknowledgement is made of some potential Government obligation, the Committee did not offer any substantive indication of the shape which this should take.

The impact of structural factors identified in the Committee’s report was again the focus of the 1983 Australian Housing Research Council report Youth Housing Policy by Hancock and Burke. This report similarly identified youth unemployment as the single factor most frequently associated with homelessness and in combination with family breakdown, a lack of income. The insecure, poorly paid casual and part time work available to young people in conjunction with the significant levels of unemployment meant that young people basically did not have sufficient income for housing. The report concluded that the lack of emergency and long term housing for young people exacerbated the problem, contributing to the number of young people experiencing homelessness. The report highlighted that the housing problem was shared equally among tertiary students, under employed and

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 87 unemployed young people, concluding that homelessness was not a reflection of complex needs, but rather insufficient income support and lack of housing supply.

Just one year later the Commonwealth Government commissioned the Inquiry into homelessness and inadequate housing in the ACT and surrounding regions . Both the local environment and broader national trends were found to be relevant to the growing number of people who were experiencing homelessness. It was argued that the unique nature of the ACT exacerbated the problems being experienced nationally, high unemployment (particularly among young people) and increasing family breakdown (evidenced by divorce rates) which when combined placed pressure on the lower end of the rental market, increasing demand on public housing. With a decrease in supply, there had been a consequent increase in rental costs in the private market. It was also noted that the people who were most evident among the homeless were single people and young people; that is people who were given lowest priority and were mostly likely to be rejected by public housing as priority applicants. The Inquiry found that an inadequate supply of accessible, affordable housing of the appropriate size and offering a range of support facilities for those in housing need was the primary cause of homelessness. In addition, it was asserted that lack of employment and consequent reliance on income support as well as family breakdown were contributing factors (Report of Committee of Inquiry 1984, 6).

The Australian Labor Party Housing Policy Statement of November 1982 included a proposal to investigate and report on the incidence, causes and effects of homelessness and inadequate housing in Australia. In the intervening years the Government funded studies (described above) and non government agencies undertook studies and surveys of accommodation problems. Funding for a more comprehensive study was set in the 1983- 84 federal budgets with the expectation that the findings would help to shape a national response to the International year of Shelter for the Homeless in 1987.

Accordingly, in 1985 the Commonwealth Department of Housing and Construction commissioned Coopers Lybrand WD Scott to undertake a Study into homelessness and inadequate housing . The objectives of the study were to report on the causes, incidence and effects homelessness and inadequate housing, the characteristics, preferences and needs of those who are homeless or inadequately housed, and major deficiencies in the supply of appropriate accommodation to those in need of assistance.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 88

In reporting their findings, the consultants emphasised a number of key messages which were grounded largely in structural considerations. The report found that a mismatch existed between housing supply and demand. More particularly it reported its conclusion that income maintenance is inadequate with respect to actual rental costs. The report highlighted that low cost housing is not attractive to rental market investors, particularly given that home ownership had been a keystone in the Government’s housing policy. The Government’s support for homeownership further disadvantaged households with limited income and for which home ownership is an unlikely outcome. Discrimination in the rental market against single parent families, women as well as after housing poverty were found to place tenancies at greatest risk. Finally the report noted that young people were at heightened risk due to the impact of all these trends including low income support benefits, limited housing options and high unemployment.

As a consequence of this analysis the consultants highlighted the way in which critical policies were primary contributors to the growing number of people experiencing homelessness and the need to focus on structural and environmental factors rather than individual remediation. It found, for example, that a key policy issue was the willingness of Government to raise incomes above the poverty line to enable people to meet the marginal cost of housing or alternatively for Government to subsidise supply to effectively reduce housing cost, with a preference to a public housing solution rather than the private market. Separating supply issues from operational issues (e.g. discrimination against particular populations) it was asserted that the system of financial supports for home ownership effectively contributed to the housing risk for those on lower incomes. Long public housing waiting lists, discrimination by age, race, lifestyle and disability and low income were seen as aggravating the housing crisis (Coopers Lybrand WD Scott 1985, 49).

A large part of Australia’s homeless and inadequately housed population arises from a suppression of demand caused by low incomes. It is not known to what extent the quantity of housing demanded would grow if income were supported at levels which make the marginal cost of housing affordable (Coopers Lybrand WD Scott 1985, 91).

The report also noted the additional vulnerabilities that act as critical risk factors for homelessness, such as being released from institutions and retirement from work in which

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 89 housing had been provided by the employer were amongst these factors. It was argued that this was to some degree related to the decrease in housing options for people in such vulnerable positions and reflected the declining number of boarding houses, caravan parks, and short term housing. Urban gentrification, increasing property values and rising costs were found to compound the trend of declining low cost housing stock.

In making a ministerial statement to Parliament in November 1987, Senator Ryan declared that it was this report that underpinned the Government’s strategy for International Year of Shelter for the Homeless (IYSH). In declaring that the Government’s contribution to housing infrastructure was well established, the aims for IYSH included improving the effectiveness of current housing programs; increasing the involvement of governments, the private and community sectors; and encouraging new ideas and equity in the use of housing stock and financing of support mechanisms that are essential to the provision of low cost housing (Commonwealth of Australia, House of Representatives 1987, 1783).

The Government approach was based on the assumption that the current Australian Government housing strategies were substantially satisfactory. This occurred concurrently with a steady decline in Federal Government funding for public housing. Funding for IYSH was limited to documentation and research, not additional infrastructure or examination of the fundamentals of housing policy. In practical terms, there was no direct, or indirect, flow on from the essential themes of the 1985 Coopers Lybrand WD Scott Report which identified both supply and demand as the critical factors in the growing number of people experiencing homelessness . The essential economic policy and budgetary framework were effectively excised from consideration.

Reporting on the outcomes of IYSH, Kendig, Paris and Anderson (1987) similarly asserted that it was largely through the operation of the housing market that increasing inequalities were occurring. Inadequate financial security, after housing poverty and lack of adequate accommodation for those vulnerable as a result of chronic illness, disability and social disadvantage were cited as the challenge for the national housing policy. Kendig, Paris and Anderson (1987) introduced a new language to the discourse of housing. By proposing the framework of a ‘housing ladder’, in which one transitions from their parents’ home ultimately to home ownership, a national housing norm was articulated in a manner which confirmed the inherent deviance of those who fall off the ladder, for whatever reason.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 90

Before the end of the decade two additional significant research projects were commissioned by the Australian Government which were expected to advise government thinking and policy. The first of these was the 1988 Homes Away from Home Report, the review of the national Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) Review. Although the review was not concerned with why people may have become homeless, nonetheless it did note that “A major difficulty is being experienced by most SAAP clients in being able to move on to affordable housing once their crisis has been resolved. Without a range of public housing options which cater for SAAP clients, they will be forced to use the more costly and intensive SAAP services even if they are not appropriate, purely because of the lack of public housing” (Chesterman 1988, 48). Accordingly, the Review recommended that SAAP be limited in scope to the provision of supported accommodation for people who are in crisis and homeless. To emphasise this point, it was reiterated that SAAP is not intended to help people whose main problem is lack of a dwelling and should not be seen as a long term housing option (Chesterman 1988, 40).

Again, although the Review was not concerned with a matter of causation, there was a strong message that SAAP was at risk of becoming a destination rather than a transition from crisis simply due to the lack of housing options. Chesterman pointed out the consequent need for greater access to public housing. This would not only relieve pressure on SAAP, but also would ensure that those who do not require intensive support are able to access the housing in a more cost effective way (Chesterman 1988, 87-90).

One year later, the “ Our Homeless Children, Report of the National Inquiry into Homeless Children ” was presented (Burdekin, 1989). Drawing on previous studies, the Inquiry reported that a number of interacting factors were contributing to youth homelessness. It asserted that families under stress were often impacted by unemployment, inadequate financial support systems and increasing housing costs. It reported that in the ten year period 1971-1982 the proportion of Australian income units in which there were dependent children, increased from 28% to 45%. Long term changes in the economy, the elimination of jobs for early school leavers, the move to replace long term full time positions with part time and casual work, were predicted to continue. Considering these factors, the Inquiry confirmed the view that early school leavers unable to find work, leave home in search of employment, often with the encouragement of families in financial

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 91 stress. However the inadequacy of income support and the cost of housing effectively create an environment with few alternatives.

By the end of the decade, there was a growing chasm between the arguments of economic and housing factors and individual culpability underpinning the rise in number of people being homeless or at risk of homelessness, particularly after housing costs and Government policy. Those most vulnerable to such risk were largely struggling to cope with the changing employment and economic environment.

The political processes and economic reforms sought by the Federal Government continued to contribute to economic and social inequality. There was mounting evidence provided to Government that it was the legacy of this environment which was contributing to a growing failure of the public and private market to meet community needs. Causes of homelessness were less a function of individual deficiency and more clearly a consequence of the external environment. In summarising the research findings of the period 1981- 1988, Shlay and Rossi concluded that

Homelessness may be driven by a convergence of political, social and economic forces that include housing market dynamics, economic restructuring, deindustrialisation, and labour market changes, welfare and income maintenance policy and policy to support vulnerable, disabled groups (Shlay and Rossi 1992, 145).

This was not an argument that the Government of the day chose to hear.

The Beginning of a New Decade The 1990’s saw a gradual gentle shift in discourse. This shift, however, lacked methodological rigour and was characterised by a propensity to adopt the rhetoric of complex needs to explain homelessness, creating a pot in which any ingredient (factor) could be thrown as long as some example could be presented.

In 1991 the Victorian Ministerial Advisory Committee on Homelessness and Housing commissioned a study to provide an overview of the issues surrounding homelessness and housing stress based upon previous reports and consultations (Neil and Fopp, 1992). The study concluded that although there is rarely a single causal event, homelessness is the

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 92 outcome of the interaction of a number of factors. However, many of the vulnerabilities with respect to homelessness were ascribed to the employment and housing markets. Lack of affordable housing options, limited employment opportunities and poverty were identified as much a factor of risk as individual or family problems. Neil and Fopp (1992) further concluded that the risks would be significantly reduced if there were better access to secure and affordable housing options.

The study found that the acute lack of low cost housing for those in transitional and supported accommodation (with a high incidence of reliance on income support), levels of risk of homelessness increase. The availability of affordable housing for those reliant on income support would significantly decrease the level of risk particularly for those experiencing the negative impacts of the recession- low levels of employment, rising interest rates and increased demand which led to increasing rental costs, all of which were seen as critical contributors to risk of homelessness.

In light of the recession that Australia was experiencing, Neil and Fopp (1992) asserted that Government social and economic policies had a fundamental and profound impact on an individual’s risk of becoming homeless. One exemplar pointed out in the study was the impact of deinstitutionalisation. In concert with inadequate housing options there was poor alignment between the housing market place and the needs of those being expected to relocate to community living. As a consequence of these findings, Neil and Fopp concluded that it was critical not only to identify the structural and social factors which contribute to homelessness, but also to determine those which most significantly contribute to its perpetuation.

Also in 1992 Hanover Welfare Services commissioned the Australian Institute of Family Studies to prepare a policy paper with respect to homeless families. The report Where Now? Homeless Families in the 1990’s (McCaughey, 1992) highlighted that attention had focused on children in the past and that the number of families experiencing homelessness was increasing, exacerbated by the recession. The aim of the study was to “investigate the various pathways to homelessness and to identify any points at which homelessness might have been avoided by appropriate intervention; to suggest policy options for emergency housing for families, for permanent, affordable housing and for services needed to re- establish families in the mainstream of Australian society”( McCaughey 1992, 1).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 93

Drawing on the language first posited by Kendig, Paris and Anderson (1987), McCaughey adopted the idiom of pathways to homelessness and ‘ spiralling’ downward (McCaughey 1992, 68). The terminology of ‘complex causes’ emerges as part of the language of homelessness. Pathways are variously attributed to being ‘a way of life’ from childhood or as a consequence of events.

Homelessness is not just the result of lack of adequate housing. There are other complex causes, often linked, that are deep seated and difficult to deal with. These include poverty and unemployment, the instability of family and other relationships, the violence of men towards women, lack of personal support networks, health problems, and the inability of families to cope with problems (McCaughey 1992, 6).

Ultimately, the study reached the view that the provision of affordable, secure housing is the essential pre-requisite for families to address the other problems which they are facing and which placed them at risk initially. McCaughey (1992) suggested that if the lack of affordable rental housing or accessible public housing were addressed, than the majority of risk of homelessness would be resolved. Given an excess of three years wait for assistance, public housing was deemed to be incapable of making a meaningful difference to families on limited incomes such as the unemployed (McCaughey 1992, 18).

Discrimination by private rental agents against those on pensions and large families combined with the costly impact of cyclical evictions was found to compound the disadvantage and risk. The study concluded that the lack of affordable housing was the most common cause of homelessness and was to some extent an outcome of the policies of government (McCaughey 1992, 58). In particular, the legacy of poverty as a direct outcome of the inadequate income support system was a significant factor according to this study. McCaughey asserted that income support, whether as a pension or benefit, was inadequate for even essentials and even with rent assistance, private rental housing remained unaffordable, and keeping families in an ongoing poverty trap (McCaughey 1992, 64).

Within this environment of national recession, awareness that people experiencing homelessness were largely victims of the economic circumstances and Government policy,

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 94 the following two years saw the commissioning of a combination of internal reviews, evaluations and inquiries.

Commencing in 1993 and releasing its findings in 1994, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Community Affairs commissioned the Inquiry into Aspects of Youth Homelessness Discussion Paper, which came to be known as the Morris Inquiry. The terms of reference centred on the provision of assistance for homeless youth requiring income support, with particular reference to services which would work with families to reduce the risk of young people leaving home, the integration of income support with services that facilitate family reconciliation, participation in education, training and employment, and the appropriateness of income support such that it did not act as an incentive to leave home or school. The Discussion Paper noted that it was intended to inform Government policy decisions. When considered with respect to the terms of reference, it can be inferred that the policy orientation had been pre-determined to the extent that it sought specifically to look at methods of allocating various responsibilities. The Committee found that the Government’s role should focus on a maintenance and support of the family as responsible for young people whilst responding to the needs of young people who are homeless and unsupported (House of Representatives Standing Committee on Community Affairs 1994, 3).

In conjunction with the commitment to consolidating clarity about roles and responsibilities, the Standing Committee of Community Services and Income Security Administrators took a lead role in negotiating a protocol of agreement with the States and Territories for the management of homeless young people, particularly under the age of 15. Although it took over a year for the protocol to be implemented, the aim was to put in place referral processes in which responsibility for the care and financial support (including through protective care) was firmly placed with the States and Territories. In evaluating the protocol some one year into operation, it was found that it had failed to achieve its potential (Standing Committee of Community Services and Income Security Administrators, 1996, 43).

Ultimately, the 1995 Commonwealth Government policy statement, An Agenda for Families , translated this recommendation into a policy framework. The Agenda stated that

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 95

The Government’s first priority is to reunite the young person with their family and through family mediation seek to resolve the issues which have led to the young person leaving home. If this is not possible, income support, accommodation and help to stay at school or to find employment or training are available for young people (Keating, P.J., Baldwin, P. and Crowley, R. 1995, 39).

Whether defined as family reunification or restoration, this policy placed responsibility for youth homelessness back to the family (Keating, P.J., Baldwin, P. and Crowley, R. 1995, 31).

The recommendations of the Committee saw the Commonwealth role as being limited to its responsibilities with respect to income support and fostering employment participation, while emphasising the responsibility of State and Territory Governments for the welfare of young people less than 16 years, who were not included in the provisions of the Working Nation (participation) policy. The Committee also questioned the increasing shift of SAAP to the provision of personal assistance through the case management process. While recognising that this is a response to the complexity of their life circumstances, the Committee questioned the extent to which this represents a substantive shift from crisis accommodation to a duplication of funding. The 1993 SAAP Strategic Directions recommendations however departed from this view and firmly entrenched case management as a core practice expected of SAAP service providers.

Overlapping with the timing of the Morris Inquiry, the second review of the SAAP program was commissioned. The report Moving Forward National Evaluation of the Supported Assistance Program projected a continuing increase in the incidence of homelessness as a direct consequence of poverty resulting from industry restructuring, the loss of jobs, the increase in casual and part time poorly paid jobs and increased dependence on Government support (Lindsay 1993, 5). In light of the inability of public housing to effectively meet increasing demands, the review recommended the establishment of a Housing Assistance Plan for improving access to appropriate and affordable housing for those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

Building on the notion of ‘new poor’, the SAAP review highlighted the growing demand on emergency services from people who had not previously used, or needed, such services. This newly emerging vulnerable group included people who had lost their homes as a result

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 96 of the combination of being financially over committed, often as a consequence of the schemes that encouraged home ownership, and having lost employment or having become under employed (Lindsay 1993, 51).

As part of the SAAP review , Econsult (Australia) was commissioned to examine the nature of the linkages between SAAP and other Government programs. Two principle programs that were examined were those of income support and labour market programs. With respect to income support, it was asserted that the starting point for analysis was the objective of income support payments. The objective of such payments was postulated as being to ensure that people who are unable to support themselves were not relegated to abject poverty. It found however that despite the increases in rent assistance and family supplements, there were increasing numbers of recipients living below the poverty line (Econsult 1994, 96). Drawing on this analysis, the study concluded that current levels of benefit, especially for young people, placed many at risk of homelessness and, in turn, to increased demands upon SAAP.

In considering labour market programs, the Econsult analysis found that the circumstances of people who are living homeless were fundamentally incompatible with such programs. It concluded that the circumstances of homelessness made it difficult to complete required activity programs and people who are in such circumstances are highly disadvantaged in competing for the limited number of potential jobs, made even more difficult in the context of the recession (Econsult, 1994, 9).

The review culminated in a recommendation that the objective of SAAP be revised to ensure that any person who is homeless or at risk of homelessness would be eligible for assistance, removing the limitations created by setting target groups. It was recommended that SAAP should be understood as a universal program to provide the support and accommodation needed to enable people who are homeless, or in crisis and at imminent risk of homelessness, to make the transition to independence.

However, this recommendation failed to address the fundamental barrier to independence, which was the lack of adequate, affordable housing options through the public, private or community housing sectors or the adequacy of income support. As stated in the review,

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 97

The most intractable problem facing SAAP is the lack of suitable, affordable housing for SAAP users when they leave SAAP services...forces people to remain in SAAP when their need for support has passed, and adversely affects access by others. It forces other users to move to inappropriate accommodation when their risk to again become homeless and thus returning to a SAAP is greatly increased (Lindsay 1993, 103).

The Steering Committee for the National Evaluation of SAAP also commissioned Terry Burke to report on the causes of homelessness. Burke adopted a strategic analysis of economic trends as a basis for understanding the increasing number of people experiencing homelessness. He suggested that the economic restructuring from the end of the Second World War to the 1970’s was accompanied by a shift in political rationalities. For the decades following the war, the Australian economy was principally grounded in industry with a safety net created by a centralised wage fixing system, including a minimum wage and complemented by a robust union movement. Public education, subsidised housing and public health care offered essential supports.

Burke went on to observe that by the end of the 1970’s a fundamental shift had occurred, with a move to a service based economy and a reduction in economic protections. These changes reflected a move towards a political commitment to economic rationalism which was taken up in the employment market. Restructuring, lowering wages and the casualisation of labour resulted in a fundamental change in the workforce (Burke 1994, 23- 24). Arguing that some 70% of employment created since mid 1980’s was part time in nature and 70% of all new jobs since 1976 were in bottom 20% of wages of 1976 in conjunction with increased housing costs, the result was to place single income households at risk. This occurred at the same time as the increase in the number of single parent families. This in turn led to poverty and a consequential risk of homelessness. Burke concluded then that structural unemployment was the most significant factor in creating risk of homelessness concurrent with significantly greater targeting of and cutbacks in welfare spending (Burke, 1994, 26). Although justified on the basis of encouraging the work ethic and reducing welfare dependency, the outcome contributed to the effective removal of the historic safety net principle.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 98

In illustration, Burke noted that homelessness among young people was linked to an inability to obtain work, increased housing costs, low income support and the absence of parental support. Other vulnerable groups such as recently arrived migrants lacking access to basic support, long term unemployed older men and those experiencing family breakdown were also at risk. Similarly, deinstitutionalisation left individuals with mental illness vulnerable to homelessness in communities that lack resources to provide services. Finally, Burke asserted that other factors contributing to the rising number of people at risk were the loss of low cost inner city housing to renewal, increased migration to cities for those seeking employment, the failure of the development of outer suburbs to address the needs of the poor and changing attitudes amongst women about domestic violence.

Thus, the Burke study findings were fundamentally consistent with the final SAAP review report in identifying largely structural factors as key to the growing number and diversity of people and families experiencing homelessness.

Again, concurrent with the SAAP review, the Department of Social Security carried out an internal review in concert with officers from other Government program areas in employment and family services (Prosser, 1994). The author openly acknowledged that housing-related issues were not included in the scope of their review, although its intention was to identify future directions for income support and related programs for people experiencing homelessness.

Although the review did not seek to identify specific causes for the increasing number of people experiencing homelessness, it did assert a number of critical and potentially contentious observations. The first was that there was no need for radical reform, but rather fine tuning, increasing the relationship between income support arrangements and other support programs. Secondly it accepted that the impact of deinstitutionalisation, the shortage of medium and long term accommodation, and cuts to state budgets due to the recession were relevant to the fostering an environment which exacerbated the risk of homelessness.

The review also found that the eligibility requirements and processes associated with accessing income support meant that the mainstream service system was not user friendly for people who were experiencing homelessness. This included conceding that the

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 99 breaching arrangements effectively eliminated the continuity of benefits depriving people of the resources required to meet basic needs. However, these were not the only obstacles reported by the review. It also found that the rent assistance program administered by states, the Mortgage and Rent Assistance Program, was ineffectual, delivering significantly less funding than even median costs, rendering housing costs still unaffordable.

The outcome of the review was to make recommendations focused on systems, but provided little attempt to address those factors which it had suggested may have been associated with the inability to respond effectively to the needs of people who are homeless. This review effectively redefined the problem for government as a matter of management rather than a problem of economics or homelessness.

Following the SAAP review, a committee of State and National senior public servants was formed with responsibility for establishing new directions for SAAP as the flagship program for responding to homelessness. The outcome of the deliberations of this group, the report Supported Accommodation Assistance Program Strategic Directions , was released in October 1993. The recommendations of this group were translated into the revised SAAP Act in 1994, shifting the focus of the program from crisis to transition to independence. This change had implicitly two significant implications. The first is that of ascription and the second that of moral judgment.

It was in this critical policy document that the discourse about people who experience homelessness takes on a substantive new dimension, the language of ascription takes hold and continued to dominate from that point on to the 2008 Government discussion paper for SAAP. Referring to ‘ these people’ and their ‘ complex needs ’ the report stated that this is ‘the key issue driving the proposed strategic directions’ (Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 2008, 3). Whilst recognising the lack of access to affordable secure housing, whether through the private or public rental market, a weak labor market and lack of sufficient income as primary determinants of the inability of SAAP clients to transition to independence, the recommended directions for the program itself continued to focus on ‘managing service users’ (Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 2008, 4).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 100

The new strategic directions effectively shifted the discourse by implying that a list of various characteristics or attributes of individuals were causally linked to the experience of homelessness. As asserted by Fopp (1996), this enabled a broader stereotyping of people who are homeless.

At the first level the transition occurs when attributes of a person become the cause or the explanation of homelessness for that client. At the second level the experiences of one individual are extrapolated to homeless people and become the explanation of homelessness more generally.

The problem is that the direction of causation is presumed; the homelessness is explained in the direction which begins from and with the allegedly inadequate individual, which as we shall see, ignores the broader structural explanation for the homelessness individuals’ experience (Fopp, 1996, 205).

By adopting this discourse it is possible to reorient thinking from the structural issues of lack of access to housing and inadequate income to one focused on strategies for management of people. As Fopp (1996, 212) pointed out, the tools of case management has provided a quintessential expression of the fundamental power relationship between service providers and service users.

The second crucial dimension to this policy is its key assumptions about the nature of poverty, which are at the core moralist in nature. In practical terms dependency is viewed as a moral weakness. Provision of financial aid undermines the work ethic, and primacy of place which this holds. It is essential therefore to take a proactive approach, shaping and reforming individual behaviour to comply with both normative expectations and the needs of the market place (Fitzgerald 1998) .

A third aspect of the new direction was the focus on independence, which was directly correlated to financial independence with employment as the key indicator. Accordingly, homeless persons’ services were increasingly expected to promote the Australian Government’s employment programs and to measure individual outcomes in terms of participation, compliance with mutual obligation rules and ultimately financial independence from any Government assistance.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 101

Writing in 1994, Blasi’s characterisation of the American discourse on homelessness had strong parallels to that occurring in Australia. Blasi asserted that by redefining poverty as homelessness it was possible to divert questions from addressing the fundamental issues associated with poverty itself. He argued that social research and advocates for the homeless failed to provide what he describes as a ‘corrective lens’ (Blasi 1994, 364). By focusing on those experiencing homelessness rather than the broader issue of extreme poverty it became possible to dictate the scope of the problem being addressed. This had the benefit of dealing with individuals’ presenting issue rather than the broader structural factors. This in turn avoids the need to deal with notion of poverty amongst wealth and removes any threat to established institutions. The logical outcome then of separating homelessness from poverty, is growing inequality and oversimplification itself (Blasi 1994, 568). Blasi concluded with the observation, “Defining the problem as the problem of ‘the homeless’ allows moderately liberal communities to ‘solve’ the problem of extreme poverty and discrimination by reinventing the almshouse in the form of mass shelters” (Blasi 1994, 569).

Speaking at a public forum sponsored by the Australian Centre for Equity through Education in 1995, Robert Fitzgerald expressed similar sentiments with respect to the prevailing discourse associated with youth homelessness in Australia. Fitzgerald cautioned that the reasons for young people leaving home were not synonymous with the reasons for homelessness. He argued that homelessness was a legacy of marginalisation due to inadequate access to appropriate housing, discrimination, low market wages and inadequate income support in the face of unemployment. Further, he argued that SAAP was rapidly becoming ‘a dumping ground’ for young people without access to secure medium or long term accommodation. He concluded that homelessness is a cause of disadvantage not a just a symptom (Fitzgerald 1995, 8).

The following decade of conservative government saw the emergence of a new discourse of implied causation. While the previous decades had seen the production of a number of reports taking up the recurring theme of poverty, lack of low cost housing, unemployment and changes in family structure as being key factors in the incidence of homelessness, reporting by service providers, academic researchers and government funded studies

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 102 became increasingly focused on demonstrating the condition of homelessness as being synonymous with mental illness, substance abuse, deviance, and personal deficit.

A significant indicator of the discourse which underpinned the emerging Government policy was particularly well reflected by the fact that SAAP and complementary initiatives associated with homelessness had been, and continued to be, placed within the Family and Community Service portfolio. It is within this area of government bureaucracy that the plethora of social problems is gathered. This can be compared, for example, with the British approach in which responses to homelessness, and government policy in general, was situated within the housing portfolio. Although there was a concurrent voice of dissent with respect to the individualisation of causation, it nonetheless underpinned Government social and economic policy, reflected in both income support and housing programs.

Competing Discourses Over the five year period 1995-1999 a number of competing arguments emerged seeking to explain the increasing number of people presenting for assistance from social housing providers, both public housing, community housing and supported accommodation. Over the same period, concern was also expressed about the increase in homelessness amongst Australian families as well as the incidence of homelessness amongst young people.

Although Government policy and program responses to homelessness were grounded in a belief in the linkage between homelessness and individual deficits (whether mental health, substance use, lack of participation or dysfunction), concurrent arguments were made that such factors primarily increase the vulnerability or exacerbate the impacts of homelessness. It was further argued that the lack of low cost housing, poverty, and high unemployment remained critical causes of homelessness.

This conflicting argument between structural factors and individualisation as causes of homelessness was subject to some debate at the 1996 Housing Conference. Citing the SAAP Strategic Directions Paper, the Government view was articulated as “A profile of those currently using SAAP services demonstrates the complex needs of these people and provides a context for both the issues facing SAAP as a program, and the strategies that are required to change service provision in order to improve the outcomes for clients” (Department of Housing and Regional Development, 1993 cited by Fopp, 2002). This policy

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 103 and program focus on the complexity of needs and personal characteristics effectively ignored the lack of accessible (that is not just low cost, but cheap) housing and poverty.

However, Fopp then questioned how this list of complex needs had been reinterpreted to form the basis upon which Government policy and program was based. In short the list of profile characteristics became the raison d’être for Government policy (Fopp (1996). “The problem is that the direction of causation is presumed; the homelessness is explained in the direction which begins from and with the allegedly inadequate individual, which as we shall see, ignores the broader structural explanation for the homelessness individuals’ experience” (Fopp 1996b, 205).

Speaking to homelessness amongst Australian families, Horn (1996, 2) similarly highlighted the problem of limiting understanding (and responses) to homelessness to individualisation and social trends. Accepting that family breakdown and violence were contributing factors in homelessness for some families, it was argued that structural factors including unemployment and growing inequality contributed to increased numbers of families experiencing poverty, conflict, stress and hence vulnerability to homelessness. Horn further argued that Government housing assistance policies were inadequate and ineffective, resulting in a polarisation between families able to afford and maintain stable housing (principally those in home ownership) and those in housing stress (the majority of which in private rental) due to unemployment and poverty.

The increasing rate of homelessness among young people also continued to be contentious. Reporting on a study of homelessness among young people, commissioned by the National Youth Affairs Research Scheme, Crane and Brannock concluded that “homelessness most clearly arises from a lack of access to affordable safe accommodation” (Crane and Brannock 1995, vii). Although family breakdown may be a trigger to young people leaving home, Crane and Brannock disputed the Government view that the provision of income support was an inducement for home leaving, asserting that there was no evidence of such an impact. Crane and Brannock pointed out that home leaving itself does not cause homelessness (Crane and Brannock 1995, 98). They argued rather that while the social norm is for school aged young people to remain within the family (that is prior to the age in which school leaving is legally sanctioned), school leaving has been a historically accepted transition point at which young people would expect to pursue

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 104 independent living. However, as employment options declined, there were no income support systems (including housing options) sufficient to enable young people to move to independence. This view was similarly expressed by Hallebone (1997) in considering marginality amongst the homeless in Australia. This led to the rhetorical question as to the means of resolving the conflict between the historic Australian cultural norm of young people transitioning to independence on finishing their schooling and the prevailing political and economic environment.

The concept of ‘early home leaving’ as a primary cause of youth homelessness became a critical dimension to Government thinking, shaping social and economic policy. Relying on a discourse of family values and the work ethic, the new Howard Government’s income support policy was designed to create effective disincentives to the previously well accepted move to independence by young people on reaching legal maturity. The terms and conditions associated with eligibility for and the level of payment of Youth Allowance, the restrictive nature of the Youth Homeless Allowance were, to some extent, a reflection of the belief that providing financial support was a family obligation in the first instance and that such payments should only be available within a very narrow range of cases. In speaking to the Youth Allowance Bill, M Barresi (MP) in November 1997 said:

While it may sound harsh, the concept of parental responsibility versus parental self- interest must be clearly distinguished. The responsibility of parents who have the means does not end when their kids reach the age of consent, the age of being licensed to drive a car or the age when they can legally buy their first alcoholic drink. That is parenting through abdication. That is what the Labor government promoted, and we have made parenting by abdication rather than by responsibility a norm in our society (Commonwealth of Australia, House of Representatives 1997, 10754) .

This view of parental responsibility similarly underpinned the Youth Homeless Pilot Projects (YHPP) initiated by the Howard Government as a pre-election promise, and made in response to increasing media attention to youth homelessness. From its inception in 1996, the Projects were based upon the underlying emphasis on family reconciliation as the primary intervention tactic for addressing youth homelessness. However the Youth Homeless Pilot Projects initiative was only one string in the Government’s bow. At the same time, changes to income support (or supplement as it was described by various

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 105 ministers) included raising the age of dependence from 22 to 25 years, introducing a parental means test and formal verification by external authorities as a pre-requisite for eligibility for a youth homeless allowance, as well as verification from a parent. The over- riding strategy for reducing youth homelessness was to refocus responsibility away from Government and structural considerations and to individualise liability to the family. It is also relevant to recognise that this construction of the ‘homeless youth’ and family breakdown was a strategy in which the identity of the homeless young person was assembled and to some degree marketed to the community. The impact of rising housing costs, constricted employment market and casualisation of employment as well as diminished financial support had a substantial impact on students, trainees, and young people able to access only casual or part time employment. However, this did not mesh well with the broader Government discourse of family values.

Concurrently, the Government discourse with respect to poverty, income support and support of the private market created a foundation in which homelessness was viewed to no small extent as a consequence of lack of participation in the workforce. Increasing obligations for participation as a condition of income support as well as the reconfiguration of income support programs to reflect the focus on activity were tangible evidence of this principle. It was most clearly expressed in the report of the Australian Government Reference Group on Welfare Reform. In the Final Report, Participation Support for a More Equitable Society , the Reference Group asserted that the social security system, which was initiated in a different social and economic environment, was flawed by its failure to focus on, or provide adequate recognition of, the importance of participation.

Australia’s social support system must do more than provide adequate levels of income support for people in need. It must ensure that people are actively engaged socially and economically, including in the labour force, to reduce the risk of long term social and economic disadvantage (Australian Government Reference Group on Welfare Reform 2000, 3).

Accordingly it noted that the obligation to participate is a critical pre-requisite to qualify for income support (Australian Government Reference Group on Welfare Reform 2000, 15). Although the Reference Group agreed that housing policy should support the

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 106 individual ability to find access and take up paid work, it did not address in any substantive way the impact of homelessness on meeting such obligations.

Early 2000 also saw the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) push for greater recognition by the Government of the structural factors impacting on people in the Australian community in a real and difficult way, including leading to homelessness. Raper noted in his article in Parity Magazine that the three key areas requiring action to address homelessness were improvement in the income support provisions, increasing supply of affordable housing and increasing employment opportunities for those who have been excluded from the labour market (Raper 2000,3).

In May 2000 the Australian Government announced a National Homelessness Strategy. In a Foreword to the Strategy, the Minister for Family and Community Services, Joceyln Newman, stated that the Strategy focused on social and economic participation and was designed to be consistent with the welfare reform agenda. This view was encapsulated by the Prime Minister in saying “Our aim is to build a modern social safety net which is not founded on expanding the welfare state but on lessening welfare dependence and broadening the choices available to individuals, families and communities” (Department of Families and Community Services, 2000, 9).

The Minister asserted that domestic violence is a major cause of homelessness, as is family breakdown and isolation from community support. Finally, psychiatric disabilities were identified as a major factor in homelessness. (Department of Families and Community Services, 2000, 9). Although the loss of employment opportunities particularly for less skilled jobs and the decline in the availability of low cost housing was noted, the Strategy itself was concerned principally with what is best described as various types of individual deficit or deviance, and alignment of government, service and community relationships. This is reflected by the citing of budget commitments to the National Illicit Drugs Strategy and the Family Relationship Services and projects as key to the National Homelessness Strategy itself. It does not address such fundamentals as the poverty trap created by inadequate income support systems.

As part of the National Homelessness Strategy (and as provided by the 1994 SAAP Act), the Minister for Family and Community Services appointed the Commonwealth Advisory

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 107

Committee on Homelessness (CACH). The role of the Committee was to advise the Minister on the national homelessness strategy, and to act as a key conduit for consultation. In developing the National Homelessness Strategy a three step process was adopted. The CACH established a Consultation Paper, which was widely circulated, with the preparation of a Government response to the comments provided to the paper. This was expected to inform the development of the National Homelessness Strategy. However, there was a noticeable discontinuity between the factors identified by the CACH and the Strategy itself.

Presenting its Consultation Paper in 2001, the CACH found that homelessness was caused by structural factors including poverty, lack of affordable housing and unemployment, with increased vulnerability for those whose access to income, housing and employment is compromised by disadvantages associated with health or disability (Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Homelessness 2001, 8). In addressing the factors seen as being critically related to homelessness, the CACH noted that compliance with obligations and administrative requirements as a pre-requisite to income support posed significant barriers for people and further that lowly paid employment similarly compromised the ability of people to secure and maintain housing.

The lack of affordable, secure housing is a substantial cause of homelessness. People receiving income support or low incomes are often unable to obtain appropriate housing in competitive markets. Individuals and their dependants are at risk of losing stable housing if they breach Centrelink procedures. Demand for social housing and low-cost housing is increasing and far outweighs supply. Social and low cost housing is often provided in places where employment opportunities and community support is limited (Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Homelessness 2001, 23).

While acknowledging that family breakdown can increase vulnerability to homelessness, it is noted that it is not the breakdown itself, but rather poverty that leads to housing risk; that is family breakdown for those with adequate incomes rarely leads to homelessness. Similarly, the Report notes that people exiting from prison and those with long term patterns of substance abuse are particularly vulnerable to homelessness. However, in neither case are these factors seen as being specific causes of homelessness. (Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Homelessness 2001, 41, 44).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 108

Citing a number of case studies indicating that people who are homeless present with significantly greater levels of ill health, including depression, substance use and nutritionally related disorders than those found in the general community, these health related problems were not interpreted as being the cause of homelessness, but more an outcome of it. In particular the lack of access to suitable health services was highlighted as a key barrier experienced by people who are homeless (Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Homelessness 2001, 38). It was argued instead that the failure to provide adequate community options for people who were previously living in residential facilities and the inability of mainstream services to respond appropriately had exacerbated the problem (Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Homelessness 2001, 38).

Responses from the homelessness sector identified what were seen as fundamental flaws in both the Discussion Paper and the Strategy. The Australian Federation of Homeless Organisations (AFHO), a peak body funded by the Government to present a single voice for the various stakeholder organisations, highlighted a number of issues, not least of which was the lack of an evidence base. “Overall, the NHS Discussion Paper demonstrates very poor reference to available research including recent Commonwealth Government commissioned research. As a result its themes etc are questionable” (AFHO 2000, Attachment 1). Commenting on the priorities of the Strategy, it is noted that investigation into causal factors (including structural issues), the housing market and reducing poverty are missing and should be considered of highest priority.

Also responding to the National Homelessness Strategy, Wood (2003) expressed concern with respect to the Government’s position encapsulated in the statement “Underpinning the whole of the Australian Government’s welfare reform agenda is the view that the answer to social problems cannot be provided by Government alone. New and innovative ways must be found to involve community and business in a partnership with Government to help disadvantaged people” (Wood 2003, 5). This is viewed as a critical statement not only because it frames homelessness as a social problem and a welfare issue, but also limits Government responsibility in addressing it.

From 2000 there were an increasing number of case studies, presentations, articles and service provider research focused on documenting dysfunctions and or deficits exhibited by people presenting as homeless or living rough. In this context, peak bodies, academic and

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 109 social researchers and practitioners became activists in presenting themselves as having expert knowledge critical to understanding and responding to people who are homeless. This included those who focused on deficits of the homeless (Baldry, 2001; AFHO 2002; Parker, Limber and McKeon, 2002; Robinson, 2003; Council to Homeless Persons, 2001; ACOSS, 2001; Kamieniecki, 2001; Meadowcroft, 2000) and similarly those which sought to model homelessness (Casey, S. 2002; Mackenzie and Chamberlain, 2003). By individualising the cause of homelessness such studies had a consequential effect of providing the evidence to support a Government discourse that in principle and practice ignored the structural factors from the broader policy and program agenda.

Twenty First Century Views Over the ensuing half decade two critical themes dominated the discourse of causation as embraced by Government. The first theme was grounded in the ascription of individual characteristics of people presenting to SAAP services (as collected in the national data collection) and reported upon by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). This approach was concerned principally with quantifying the demographic and situational characteristics of SAAP clients to describe the homeless and to infer a causal link between such factors and causation. This included, for example, AIHW reports Young Homeless People in Australia (2001-2002), Children accompanying homeless clients, 2002-03, Homeless SAAP clients with a disability, 2002-03, Female SAAP clients and children escaping domestic and family violence, 2003-04, Homeless children in SAAP, 2004-05, and Homeless SAAP clients with mental health and substance use problems, 2004-05. This culminated in the 2008 census to measure the level and complexity of SAAP client's needs.

This focus on individual dysfunction was also reflected in research commissioned by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (a fully government funded research provider) which introduced homelessness as a funded theme for research in 2001. Funded investigations included such studies as Heroin users, housing and social participation: attacking social exclusion through better housing 2002; Ex-prisoners and accommodation: what bearing do different forms of housing have on social reintegration? (2003); Housing options and independent living: sustainable outcomes for older people who are homeless (2003); and Developing effective housing management strategies to address problems of anti social behaviour (2003). Other studies focused on both young homeless and new migrants.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 110

The second recurring theme was that of ascribing the cause of homelessness as an outcome of dynamic processes variously described as pathways, careers, ladders, revolving doors and cycles. Studies such as Robinson (2003) Understanding iterative homelessness: The case of people with mental disorders and MacKenzie and Chamberlain (2003) Homeless Careers: pathways in and out of Homelessness set the course for such argument. In fact the evaluation of SAAP IV adopted the language of homeless career as a preferred approach to understanding how homelessness occurs for young people and adults (Erebus Consulting Partners 2004, 35-38).

Published in 2006, the Pinkney and Ewing Study of Costs and Pathways of Homelessness was funded by the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services to inform the SAAP IV review. In tracing the evolution of thinking about the causes of homelessness, Pinkney and Ewing identified the work of Howard Becker (1966), who pioneered the notion of ‘career’ as a means for describing the process by which individuals come to adopt deviant ways of life as part of their own persona. Some three decades later, Chamberlain and Mackenzie adapted this model to explain chronic youth homelessness. During the late 1980’s and 1990’s there was increasing interest in identifying drivers of homelessness (whether described as triggers or causes) such as eviction, deinstitutionalization, family breakdown and the like (Pinkney and Ewing 2006, 65). Pinkney and Ewing went on to suggest that consequent arguments to explain chronic homelessness and in particular a culture of homelessness was consistent with the earlier explanations of deviance by Becker. The career model of explanation for homelessness, and particularly chronic homelessness, offers a basis for the argument of early intervention. If there is some biographical sequence by which individuals move into and remain as homeless, “it is possible to observe in the lives of people the early manifestations of the phenomenon in the making, and respond in such a way that progression to experiencing the phenomenon is halted or impeded” (Pinkney and Ewing 2006, 69). However, others criticized this model and postulated that a ‘pathways’ model was preferred as being less deterministic. In this modelling, pathways are about mapping causal trajectories both into and out of homelessness (Pinkney and Ewing 2006, 88).

Although there were a mounting number of studies and reports (generated by service providers and to a lesser extent researchers) documenting a range of problems

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 111 experienced by people presenting as homeless and creating explanatory models, the fundamental role of poverty and structural factors as primary causes of homelessness were not entirely ignored (Meadowcroft and Charman, 2000; AFHO, 2001; Kamieniecki, 2001; Horn and Cooke. 2001; Mission Australia, 2004; Fitzpatrick, 2005; Gronda, 2006; McArther, M., J. Zubrzycki, A. Rochester, L. Thomson, 2006; .

In 2004 the Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee presented its enquiry into poverty “ A Hand up Not a Hand Out ” commissioned in 2002 by the Committee Chair. A critical conclusion reached by the Reference Committee was that income support arrangements fail to enable people to meet their basic needs, irrespective of the method of calculation (Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee 2004, 101). In addition the Committee concluded that the inability to access affordable housing was a significant cause of homelessness, exacerbated by poverty and unemployment, any of which individually had the ability to place people at risk of homelessness (Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee 2004, 124). Given the barriers created by homelessness to accessing income support, to maintain education, training, or job search requirements, the Committee concluded that “Until security of tenure is stable, other issues relating to economic vulnerability cannot be addressed. ...Housing can provide, inter alia, a stable base for people to find a job, undertake study and training, participate in family and community activities and access local services” (Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee 2004, 121). In making its final recommendations, the Committee emphasised the importance of increased funding for public housing, increased levels of income support, review of the Commonwealth Rent Assistance program which was seen as not addressing affordability or access issues and strategies for addressing the limitations created by a Government reliance on the private marketplace (Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee 2004, 136).

Significantly, this report did not represent a whole of Government view. In responding to the Committee’s recommendations, Government senators did not specifically deny the relationship between poverty and homelessness, but rejected the actions recommended by the Committee. The Government Senators’ response reasserted the view that increasing income support was not useful and that the appropriate Government response should remain founded on the basics of welfare to work, mutual obligation and participation as

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 112 the keystone of Government policy (Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee 2004, 455).

In the same year, 2004, the evaluation of SAAP IV was presented to the Government. The findings of this evaluation are best appreciated within the context of the sequence of Government thinking about the program itself. The 1987 evaluation found that the program was not effective in fostering independence and required re-configuration towards this goal (Erebus and Partners 2004, 3). Each subsequent iteration of the program prioritised the achievement of independence as the primary desired outcome, continuing through SAAP II, III and IV. Indeed the Memorandum of Understanding between the Commonwealth and States emphasised the primary importance of economic and social participation as the means of responding to the causes of homelessness. Again, in each Bilateral Agreement between the Commonwealth and State/Territory Governments, participation is articulated as a key object of the program (Erebus and Partners 2004, 10).

In presenting its findings, the evaluation team reported that the ability for SAAP service providers to assist people to transition to independence in housing and particularly through employment was significantly compromised by the lack of housing options, high rates of unemployment and poverty (Erebus and Partners 2004, 5). It was argued that to some extent homelessness and the presentation of people with a range of problems was a legacy of other service failures. This included, for example, failure to address accommodation needs of young people leaving care or custody, de-institutionalisation of mental health services and re-organisation of drug and alcohol services (Erebus and Partners 2004, 101). Finally, it was concluded that, “On the one hand, there is an increasing international trend to begin to recognise some of the structural causes of homelessness and to develop policy responses that genuinely begin to address those issues. Importantly however, in the Australian context there has also been a growing emphasis by the Australian Government on those individual or personal factors that can increase the risk of homelessness” (Erebus and Partners 2004, 138).

This conclusion was a reflection of submissions to the review by a range of services, and well summarised by Hanover Services who asserted that: The issue of homelessness cannot be isolated from the structural and systemic factors that contribute to it. … Poverty in Australia is increasing, with income

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 113

inequality causing greater gaps in, for example, educational opportunities, employment opportunities and health care, including mental health. It is interesting to note that there is a growing international trend to recognise and accept the analysis of the structural causes of homelessness, and to consider the policy responses needed to address homelessness. In Australia there has been an emphasis by the Government on those individual factors that can increase the risk of homelessness and exacerbate the situation for many people living in vulnerable situations. These include limited social and living skills, low level educational attainment or school exclusion, drug and alcohol misuse, problem gambling, a history in state care or correctional facilities, poor mental health and child abuse. This has limited the policy response and has done little to actually reduce or prevent homelessness (Erebus and Partners 2004, 135).

The next generation of SAAP, SAAP V, did not reflect any substantive change. As with its predecessors and consistent with the 1993 Act, the program and the services that were funded under it, were about promoting independence. SAAP services were expected to resolve crisis, support re-establishment of family linkages and increase the capacity of people to live independently of SAAP. The SAAP V Multilateral Agreement in relation to the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program specified that funded services were expected to promote participation in employment, education, training, and the like as well as to assist the homeless to obtain long term, secure and affordable housing. In a practical sense, the desired outcome for SAAP clients remained synonymous with financial independence and employment.

From the implementation of SAAP V and the period up to the change of Government in 2007, the examination and discussion of causation was overtaken by a greater focus on particular circumstances (e.g. exit from prison, escaping domestic and family violence) and specific populations (e.g. young people, families, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and older people). With Government relying upon analysis of SAAP data by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare as its primary source of evidence, there was little change in Government policy or programs which suggest any new understandings of causation – but rather an ongoing focus on individualisation.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 114

In 2008 the newly elected Labor Government commissioned the preparation of a Green Paper to advise the development of Government policies and strategies to respond to homelessness. The Green Paper titled Which Way Home? A new approach to homelessness was designed as a consultation document to underpin the preparation of the White Paper setting out Government’s new policy and action plan. In launching this Paper the Prime Minister also announced prior decisions to contribute Commonwealth funding towards the production of ‘affordable’ housing through partnerships with the private sector and strengthening the homelessness service system. Further, the Prime Minister observed that

What I learned from these people is that there is no one path into homelessness. Every person has a different story and a different set of circumstances which brought them to homelessness. The immediate reasons for homelessness lie in family breakdown, job loss, sickness, drug addiction, gambling addiction and domestic violence. Homelessness is also a window into the wider debate on Australian disadvantage – the rising costs of housing, the rising cost of living, and the particular challenges facing many young people and senior Australians on the fringes of our society (Rudd, 2008).

On the 21 st December 2008, the Government launched its White Paper, The Road Home , which set out the Government’s understanding of the causes of homelessness and its response to it. In setting the parameters for the Government’s strategies, the White Paper nominated four ‘pathways’ to homeless including housing stress, family breakdown, poor life transitions (e.g. from child protection, prison, statutory care), and untreated mental health and substance use, that lead to loss of housing, education, employment, family and relationships. Although the Government acknowledged structural drivers as contributing factors, as with the previous administrations, poverty or the adequacy of income support itself did not enter into the discourse of homelessness.

Reporting in the Sydney Morning Herald on 21 January 2009, Stephanie Peatling cited a Department of Employment Education and Workplace Relations internal departmental survey which found that during 2008 nearly two and half thousand people were rendered homeless either through eviction or an inability to pay rent as a result of being breached for 8 weeks by Centrelink (Peatling 2009, 6). Peatling reported that Government commitments to a more flexible approach for people who are homeless had not translated

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 115 into a reduction in the practice of suspending income support payments to homeless people for standard breach conditions. A reliance on charitable assistance, whether through agencies or families, remained the only practical options for survival for those who had their income suspended for eight weeks. The survey concluded that the penalty system had not had any consequential impact on the number of people gaining employment.

The Missing Pieces of Evidence Based Discourse Marianne Valdere wrote that the sociology of knowledge does not differentiate between the production and application of knowledge (Valdere 2003, 5). This is understood in the context of the selectivity of information that provides the basis of evidence or knowledge which is to be disseminated and used. It is this selectivity which also provides the basis for asserting truths upon which action is taken. This is what makes the understanding of causation of homelessness problematic for Government and the manner in which such understanding translates into strategies to redress the problem. Through the selection of an ascription of evidence to particular knowledge, there is a consequent suppression of contradictory knowledge. This has the power to suppress alternative methods of thinking. As evidence is generated based upon the reiteration of prior arguments of knowledge, there is a consequential validation of such assertions. It is these processes of selectivity, of reliance on and the production of further evidence of knowledge that has helped shaped Government interpretation of the causes of homelessness.

The consequence of such selectivity has meant the promotion of evidence which orients understanding of homelessness not in the context of poverty, or a changing housing or employment environment, but in the need to rehabilitate the homeless to participate in a market driven economy. This remains consistent with the creation and management of a governable population and justifies Governmental practices based upon this political, social and economic philosophy. Analysis of the translation of this way of thinking into Government policy and practice is set out in subsequent chapters of this thesis.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 116

Chapter 5 Human Rights and Homelessness

In light of numerous issues described in this report, the Special Rapporteur has come to the conclusion that Australia has failed to implement the human right to adequate housing (Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, Miloon Kothari, 11 th May 2007).

Introduction A growing number of contemporary legal, social and academic authors have written on the nexus between homelessness and human rights (Otto 2002,2003; Lynch 2002; Lipmann, 1999; Felice, 1996) concentrating on the failure of Australia to meet its obligations under the numerous international agreements to which it is a signatory. This includes Australia’s commitment to the to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant Rights of Children. Citing available statistical evidence of homelessness, the failure of emergency housing to accommodate over half of applicants seeking crisis assistance, and the inability of public housing to cope with demand, discrimination by statute, studies demonstrate the numerous ways in which the homeless are denied the rights articulated in such agreements. This includes delivery on the specific right to housing and security, as well as the way in which homelessness acts as a barrier to the exercise of human rights accorded to the population at large.

By adopting the notion of human rights, and in particular universal human rights, as a basis of argument, there is an implicit suggestion and acceptance that is equivalent to legitimising a claim of entitlement by all people. This then raises the question what is the basis for asserting the universality of such human rights and what is the relationship of such thinking to the political, legal, cultural and economic rationalities that shape the how such rights are to be realised. As Andrew Heard, in “ Human Rights: Chimeras in Sheep’s Clothing ” (1997) concluded

Beyond the genesis of human rights, wherever they come from, lies a fundamental challenge to their universality, regardless of their origin. With any inception of human rights, one is faced with having to acquire acceptance of their authority. There is a problem in that not everyone will share the same motivation or inspiration

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 117

for human rights. Not everyone will agree that everything asserted as a human right is indeed one. At a very basic level, the proclamation and acceptance of human rights norms inherently involves majoritarian morality. Human rights are agreed to exist because a majority says they do (Heard 1997, Challenges to the Universality and Inalienability of Human Rights para 5).

In a complementary way, John Shestack (1998, 210-224) cautions that the term ‘rights’ in itself is complex and can refer to an entitlement to, immunity from, a privilege or a power. As such, this involves a complexity in negotiating between that which has been argued as inalienable rights (because a person is human) or as a legal right (reliant upon a statutory entitlement) or a moral right (grounded in cultural relativism). Further the assertion of rights has an implicit and explicit influence on the expected roles or obligations of the state in ensuring the protection of such rights, circumstances in which rights are perceived more as privileges, and the conditions under which such rights might be exceptional. In a practical sense, any human rights deemed by consensus of the population or the political state to be inviolable are taken to reflect the moral, political, legal and ethical rationales dominant at the time.

Human rights can then be shown to be an historic, social and political construct that shapes and moderates power relationships, including but not limited to, between the state and its population. This was articulated by Arat (2006, 427) who in referring to human rights said “…they reject discrimination, promote equal treatment and involve capacity building and power is distributed and maintained by cultural traditions, in each society, those who are in privileged positions will continue to resist the use of human rights treaties by their disenfranchised and marginalised citizens”.

A corollary to the human rights discourse is the tension between the rights of the individual and the rights of a group or collective. The extent to which rights are ascribed to an individual, by virtue of being human or even a citizen, versus a collective minority has been a recurring theme in rights philosophy and argument. Because the protection of human rights can be shown to be largely a matter of governmental action, or inaction, it is reasonable to consider rights arguments as a matter of procedural justice, which in turn shapes human rights priorities (Felice, 1996). However ,moral, philosophic and legal human rights frameworks had, until the more recent emergence of the indigenous peoples, gay

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 118 rights and women’s rights movements, been constructed in terms of promoting the rights of the individual rather than the group. Even to date, recognition of group rights remains, by and large, limited to race, gender, and disability and to a lesser extent sexuality. People living in poverty, a primary contributor to rights deprivation, have not been recognised as group whose rights are consistently compromised. As observed by Felice:

Liberal human rights theory often fails to recognise that equality of opportunity is an illusion in a society based upon competitive individualism, where not only is individual pitted against individual but group is pitted against group. In such an atmosphere the rights of those groups on the lower end of the spectrum of opportunity must be protected or all individual and group rights are diminished (Felice 1996, 60).

It is possible to assert that looking at human rights from an individual perspective is consistent with, and serves the purposes of the state. Whether governed on the basis of liberal, neo-liberal, conservative or neo conservative rationalities, the notion of individual rights has been grounded in the debate about social, economic and civic entitlements. The extent to which government has engaged in protecting or enabling equal access to basic entitlements has been based on a framework of privileges, bonuses or handouts for which the individual may be variously deserving or undeserving. Whilst twentieth century welfare liberal discourse underpinned the establishment of a range of social, health and income support programs, the rise of neo-liberalism in the latter half of the century saw successive Australian Governments shrink from such programs in the name of individual responsibility and self management.

This is well demonstrated when consideration is given to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant Rights of Children, all of which seek to describe a statement of minimal conditions which are deemed to be essential to enable individuals to meet fundamental needs. The realisation of individual rights then becomes a matter of the way and extent to which each state elects to provide for such rights by its own actions, whether by legal and/or resource strategies.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 119

The agendas that shape international relationships, and the obligations and benefits that such relationships engender, also shape the way in which rights are interpreted and approached. Accordingly the realisation of the aims embodied in the principles of universal rights (and nominal commitments to them) is challenged by the changing, and often competing, political rationalities that guide individual states, both historic and current. These consequential differences in interpretation determine how and to what extent the delivery of such rights is seen as an obligation of the government. As noted by Weller

The analyses that implicate rights as strategy of power caution us to consider the ethical effects of rights regimes. They caution us to be aware of the shifting paradigms of political governance that spore contestations played out in the language of rights. They require an acknowledgement of the production of regimes of truth and their interplay with pre-eminent rationalities of modern rule. These acknowledgements bring to the analysis of human rights a presupposition of the historical specificity of rights, an acknowledgement that rights discourse stretches far beyond the explicit language of rights and the recognition that representation of human dignity are not confined to rights iterations and may differ across time, and in different historical, social and political contexts” (Implications, n.p. 2005).

Within Australia, the adoption, promotion and enforcement of human rights is not grounded in any constitutional or other binding commitment to any inalienable entitlements. Rights have been and continue to be defined by way of interpretation as determined by the prevailing political, social and economic values. These then form the basis for justifying the extent and way in which Government may act to promote, protect or restrict fundamental human rights. It is through this discourse that the Government is able to validate the freedoms and obligations which are ascribed to individuals and which are variously promoted or constrained by law, Government policy and administrative practice.

This demands consideration of the way in which such rationalities provide justification for the employment of mechanisms that contribute to and promote positive discrimination, in direct conflict with the intent of the international agreements to which the Government nominally subscribes by way of ratification of such Agreements.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 120

This chapter sets out a genealogy of human rights discourse, its relationship to the role of Government, with particular regard to the implications for the relationship between Government and the population. It is argued that the homeless, individually and as a group, have been excluded from accessing the rights accorded more broadly to the population not as ‘collateral damage’ but rather as a direct legacy of Government policy. Further, it can be shown that this is a logical expression of a social and political philosophy that is at odds with the notion of universal human rights.

Genealogy of Human Rights Discourse The modern notion of human rights has its origins in the philosophic, religious and political views of Hugo Grotius, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. This early discourse set the foundation of linking morality, laws, government and the individual. By challenging the ultimate authority of the sovereign, the 17 th century Age of Enlightenment saw a growing school of thought that questioned the notion of the ‘divine right of kings’ and promoted the nature of man. The introduction of natural law theory created a critical departure from the religious foundation that preceded and established a secular basis for understanding man’s relationship to laws and government.

One of the first proponents of the notion of natural laws was Hugo Grotius. Writing in 1625, in his treatise on the Law of War and Peace Grotius set out a system of principles that he described as natural laws which he asserted arose from the rational nature of man and which have a moral base. Hobbes, like Grotius, believed in the rational nature of man. Hobbes contended that man’s nature is to pursue self-interest, at the expense of all other motivations and costs. However, the brutality of man’s nature is moderated by his natural propensity to rationality, which expresses itself as a willingness to submit to authority as a means of moderating his inherent self interest. Government as a controlling authority is then, according to Hobbes, essential to regulate the natural laws of man.

Locke, a contemporary of Hobbes, while acknowledging the notion of ‘natural laws’ adopted quite a different interpretation. Locke postulated that freedom from authority of others and equality was the natural state for men and women. In his Second Treatise of Civil Government Locke stated that,

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 121

To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man (Locke, 1690).

At the same time, men and women voluntarily agreed to enter into ‘social contract’ by which to minimise the overall risks associated with the natural state. Locke argued that individual rights to life, liberty and property must be retained and it is the obligation of government to protect these natural rights. Further, failure to do this renders the government invalid and it forfeits the right to govern (Locke 1690).

Locke was not however a proponent of universal liberty. Again, drawing from his Second Treatise on Civil Government Locke observed:

There is another sort of servant, which by a peculiar name we call slaves, who, being captives taken in a just war, are by the right of nature subjected to the absolute dominion and arbitrary power of their masters…and being in the state of slavery not capable of any property, cannot in that state be considered as any part of civil society, the chief end whereof is the preservation of property (Locke 1690).

Hobbes and Locke both subscribed to a belief in the inherent equality and rationality of men. Although Hobbes and Locke differed in their view of the natural laws, that is whether man is inherently at war or inherently lives in a state of freedom, they shared the view that men willingly (that is do not need to be coerced) submit to a governing authority. Critically both Locke and Hobbes argued that it was the responsibility of the sovereign state to protect the individual’s natural rights and it is this role which defines the relationship between men and between men and government.

Rousseau, like Hobbes, believed that it was the nature of man to be driven by self interest and that such interest needs to be managed through consent to sacrifice some rights to achieve what Rousseau described as civil society. Rousseau maintained that this is achieved by means of a social contract in which the individual voluntarily contracts with society to accept certain obligations (and the forfeiture of some rights) to enjoy the benefits achieved

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 122 by such cooperation. The social contract is a reciprocal arrangement in which the individual and society have mutual obligations. Civil rights established by law and based on the general will of the people, replace natural rights (Rousseau 1968).. Rousseau postulated that civil laws must apply equally to all and provide equal rights for all citizens, although he acknowledged the possibility that the will of the majority may be at the expense of the legal rights of a minority. The object then of the social contract is to “find a form of association which will defend the person and goods of each member with the collective force of all, and under which each individual, while uniting himself with the others, obeys no one but himself, and remains as free as before” (Rousseau 1762). The Social Contract does not rely upon or embrace notions of liberal democracy, but rather reflect the values to which the populace willingly submit.

It was this philosophy that strongly influenced and was reflected in the social and political changes that marked the virtual demise of the Western monarchy and rise of the modern state in the 18 th century. From the overthrowing of Charles I, through the American and French Revolutions, the notion of a social contract became the dominant discourse associated with establishment and maintenance of the legitimacy of governments. The American colonists, for example, did not see themselves necessarily as revolutionaries. Rather, they saw that the illegal exercise of authority by King George III broke the contractual conditions for power, as reflected in the revolutionary war slogan ‘no taxation without representation’.

Both the French Declaration of the Rights of Men and the American Constitution, including the amendments set out in the Bill of Rights, drew on this philosophy in establishing the guiding principles translated into obligations of government to protect the rights of the individual. Such rights, to life, liberty and property, were not expressed as natural rights but rather as citizen rights (which enabled slavery to continue for over a half a century later). The juridical model of rights was then a mechanism by which the excesses of government could be constrained.

Although social contract theory lost favour by the end of the 18 th century, its legacy remained, providing the foundational principle that the state must govern by consent rather than solely by force, and which in turn establishes a bond between those that govern and those who are governed. Although Locke contended that acceptance of the

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 123 social contract was an individual choice, Rousseau argued that by living within the lands ruled by the sovereign state, the individual made an explicit agreement to abide by the pre- existing contract determined by the initial founders, including any rights or obligations as determined.

The rise of utilitarianism, as espoused by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, in the 19 th century reflected the increasing awareness of and concern for the role of government. Utilitarianism offered a new discourse reflecting the changing times. The notion of natural rights gave way to the principles of maximising good for the majority in a balance against the tradeoffs that may be entailed. Fundamental to the utilitarian perspective is the belief that the benefit of the majority of people should be the primary consideration in the allocation of resources and in regulating the exercise of individual rights.

Bentham and Mill adopted different reference points against which utility or benefit should be determined. Bentham took the view that the reference for utility is the measure of happiness versus pain. Actions taken should be determined on the basis of maximising happiness and minimising pain, with a measure of quantum being the primary reference for such determinations. Bentham also viewed the utilitarian approach as being directly linked with the development of law and through law the means for establishing specific rights or entitlements. For example, Bentham set out in the Principles of Penal Law (1859), Of Promulgation of the Laws (1859), and Fragment on Government (1859), such rights as the liberty of free speech and press, freedom of association, and the need for laws to be made known (and published) before being enforced. However it can be argued that Bentham’s intention was more about the constraint of the potential for the abuse of power than the notion of natural rights (Hart 1958, 595).

In contrast, Mill contended that utility should be based on maximising the welfare of all people. The distribution of the state’s resources should be determined by what will generate the most good, even though in practice this is likely to operate against a minority. At the same time, Mill asserted that some rights are essential for the effective function of a utilitarianapproach, including freedom of speech and a representative form of government. Such rights, Mill argued, are essential for determining what constitutes the greatest good. However, Mill adopted a highly paternalistic view, excluding persons he described as being in backward states of society’ (Mill 1860).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 124

Although critics of the utilitarian philosophy pointed out the inability to protect against abuse of rights, contemporary proponents of utilitarianism such as Freeden (1991) and Brandt (1992) argued that compatibility can be achieved by placing human rights within the rules by which an utilitarian decision is made.

Both social contract and utilitarian discourse are antithetical to the notion of universal rights founded on any particular moral basis. Both philosophies contend that the rights of the individual should set be in law by the state, which dictates obligations of compliance, benefits and obligations of the state and the individual. The outcome is to place the rights of individuals within that accorded to the collective, which in turn may result in an equitable distribution of rights for other groups 9. Similarly, the utilitarian philosophy is in direct conflict with the notion of individual rights, in so far as the rights of the individual are secondary to the achievement of benefit for the majority. As both Bentham and Mill suggested, human rights guarantees are needed to protect citizens from the state. In making this point, Bentham argued that without placing rights within a legal framework, that it was ‘nonsense upon stilts’ (Bentham, n.d.). The failure of the Australian Government to legislate its human rights obligations, either at federation or subsequently, and consequent failure to fulfil such obligations on international agreement, reflects the wisdom of this observation.

Both the utilitarian and legal positivists explicitly differentiated between what law ‘is’ versus what law ‘ought to be’. In short, law taken out of a moral framework is not necessarily accountable to such considerations. This differentiation then between moral rights and legal rights is critical when consideration is given to the further evolution of human rights discourse.

The early twentieth century saw the idea of cultural relativism promulgated as a counter to the utilitarian argument. The cultural relativist perspective denied the notion of any universality but rather saw culture as the determinant of values and morals, including that of rights, without any ascription of relative worth or truth. Ultimately, political and economic circumstances rendered cultural relativism into disrepute.

9 For example, this includes the rights of same sex couples to marry or the establishment of differential rights to access goods and services provided by the state.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 125

Arguably two of the most defining events in 20 th century history which had a profound impact on human rights discourse, were the two world wars. While the notion of human rights had previously been framed by religious, moral and philosophical frameworks, the impact of the wars saw the positioning of rights discourse into a new political and international framework.

The world depression of the 1930’s, the emergence of new political discourse (i.e. the rise of Marxism) and the emergence of communist states, meant enormous changes before 1950 was reached. The growth in the scope and influence of the social sciences, changes in economic and social conditions, and the Second World War collectively influenced the emergence of a new discourse for human rights. The combination of the atrocities of the Second World War, the detonation of the atomic bomb, and the consequent loss of human lives had the most profound effect. It was the magnitude of these changed circumstances that provided the impetus for the collective of sovereign states to agree on and make a commitment to the establishment of a body able to offer an enduring international forum of independent nations that is the United Nations.

Unlike its predecessor the League of Nations 10 , the United Nations had a distinct foundation of human rights principles as a raison d’être. This is best evidenced by the UN Charter itself which sets out in its preamble and purposes a commitment to human rights. The Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations states “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small”. Further, Chapter 1 of the Charter states as its purpose “To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion”. In addition, Article 62 of the Charter established the Economic and Social Council responsible for ‘recommendations for the purpose of promoting respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all’ (Charter of the United Nations 1948).

10 The League of Nations, ultimately subsumed by the United Nations, was formed at the end of World War I but had as its primary purpose to create a mechanism for resolving disputes between nations, and in particular territorial disputes. It was not however concerned with any matters ‘internal’ to sovereign states, such as the protection of human rights .

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 126

In October 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. This Declaration enumerated an internationally accepted benchmark to which sovereign nations should subscribe and aspire, by articulating the rights of individuals irrespective of ‘political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs’. Article 22 of the Declaration states: “Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realisation, through national effort and international cooperation and in accordance with the organisation and resources of each state, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948).

These agreements then form the primary framework for human rights discourse in the twentieth century. Each of the subsequent agreements, including the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, for Economic and Social Rights, and for the Rights of Children, significantly extends the human rights framework to incorporate social and economic rights which were not included in any preceding rights arguments. The recognition of social and economic rights was a substantial re-orientation from previous philosophic or moral justifications or interpretation of human rights. This reconfiguration of human rights created a basis for recognising and accepting, for the first time, the rights of minority populations, such as indigenous peoples. Writing in 1948 Eleanor Roosevelt observed that in providing a right for social security, ‘makes it the duty of the state to provide measures for the security of the individual against the consequences of unemployment, disability, old age and other loss of livelihood beyond his control’ (Roosevelt 1948, 475).

The implementation of the rights set out in these agreements was left to each signatory state. However, as signatories to these documents, the international community has responsibility for taking issue with the blatant abuse of these principles, even in the absence of any legal obligation for compliance. This is exemplified by the growing international condemnation of human rights abuses in Burma. Such expressions of disapproval do not, nonetheless, have the capacity to affect compliance in any form. As Dr Sev Ozdowski, the Human Rights Commissioner, noted that “Although human rights do not derive from governments, their protection and enjoyment depend on governments to recognise them” (Ozdowski, 2001).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 127

Importantly, the debate around the translation of human rights from a philosophical to a political context has not been resolved by such International Agreements. As early as 1958, only one decade after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the concept of distributive justice emerged as a challenge to rights discourse. The absence of the notion of justice, beyond a mention in the preamble to these Agreements, was highlighted by John Rawls in his 1958 essay Justice as Fairness . Rawls’ thesis was that human rights are the end result of justice and just institutions. “Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. Therefore in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled: the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests” (Rawls 1986, 3).

Subsequently in A Theory of Justice , Rawls put forward critical principles of justice which he conceptually described in the following manner:

All social primary goods – liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect- are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all of these goods is to the advantage of the least favoured (Rawls 1986, 303).

A significant feature of this argument was the adoption of the perspective of the least advantaged as the basis for determining what constitutes both justice and fairness. Secondly, the notion of justice and fairness are referenced to the consequences of actions (as with social contract) such that justice is a greater priority than either efficiency or welfare.

Some two decades later, Dworkin postulated a philosophical approach which was founded on the thesis that it is the obligation of government to demonstrate equal concern and respect for each of its citizens. Accordingly he argued that it is through the protection of individual liberties (such as free speech, association, religion and the like) that it is possible to protect against the risk of government failing to meets its responsibility to treat all persons as equal. Dworkin explained this in saying, “Government must not only treat people with concern and respect, but with equal concern and respect. It must not distribute goods and opportunities unequally on the ground that some citizens are entitled to more because they are worthy of more concern” (1977, 273). Further, Dworkin asserted that a fundamental canon of liberal understandings of equality is that Government cannot

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 128 find that any forms of life are inherently more or less valuable than any other. In this context liberty and equality are the basis for and yet replace the notion of human rights. Much of Dworkin’s subsequent work focused on the way in which law is used in resolving critical societal questions relating to rights. Rejecting the notion of natural rights, Dworkin postulated that rights are a child of politics and governments. Law, and its application, then are significant tools used to shape and define individual rights.

By the 21 st century human rights proponents had virtually disbanded the moral or philosophic notion that the role of government was to protect human rights. The rights argument has instead embraced a penumbra of power and political conflict; that is, through the active pursuit of human rights government can be regulated to serve the interests of the society. This then sits in direct opposition to the position that it is the responsibility of government to ensure the delivery of the rights which it nominally acknowledges and focuses instead on the methods that may be employed to ensure their realisation.

Political Rationalities and the Australian Legal Framework on Human Rights Australia takes the view that universal observance of human rights, both at home and abroad, helps to achieve a more stable and just international order, which benefits the security and prosperity of all nations and individuals (National Action Plan 2004, 5).

Unlike the majority of Australia’s western counterparts and an increasing number of the world’s nation states, Australia has no legal instrument articulating the nature of, or a commitment to, individual human rights. Consequently, it is possible to argue, as set out below, that human rights has neither historically nor contemporarily formed any part of the prevailing national political, moral or philosophical discourse.

The Australian Constitution contains no bill of rights nor is there any other legally binding charter of human rights articulated in any national legislation.11 The Constitution was designed primarily to allocate and set limits on governmental powers, relying on complementary legislation to establish obligations on individuals, organisations and other levels of government. The few rights acknowledged within the Australian Constitution

11 It is acknowledged that although both the Australian Capital Territory and the Victorian State Governments have adopted a bill of rightsthese apply only with theirown limited jurisdiction .

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 129 concern themselves with the relationship between Government and citizens, but address neither protection of rights within the private sphere nor establish any benchmark of the norms that might apply. Although there are a number of Acts which are intended to mitigate discrimination, such legislation is not equivalent to nor does it establish any inalienable human rights. Any right which may be granted by an Act of Parliament can also be reversed by Parliament, thereby limiting such statutory provisions to being better understood as virtual entitlements rather than enduring rights.

In the absence of any legislated commitment to the principles of social, civil and economic rights, Australian governments have been able and continue to adopt rationalities which justify and promote active discrimination amongst its own citizens. This is best illustrated by the discretionary way in which income support is made available, through policies and practices that separate those who are entitled, and under what conditions, to such support. In short although the basis for, and reasoning behind the way in which government assistance has been distributed has been varied by different governments, it has remained an act of Government beneficence rather than obligation.

The decision not to an incorporate a bill or charter of rights within the constitution was purposeful. In framing the Australian Constitution there was a prevailing view that both common law and ‘the good sense of elected representatives’ was sufficient to ensure the operation of responsible government (Williams 1999). The rejection of any form of legislative recognition of human rights which can be traced back to the debate on the original constitution remained unchallenged for decades. Otto (2003) for example cites Sir Robert Menzies 1967 assertion that

Should a Minister do something which is thought to violate fundamental human freedom, he (sic) can be brought to account in Parliament. If his government supports him, the government may be attacked, and if necessary defeated. And if that...leads to a new General Election, the people will express their judgement at the polling booths. In short, responsible government is regarded by us as the ultimate guarantee of justice and individual rights (Otto 2003, 54).

Despite the lack of any constitutional entitlements, Australia became a signatory of international treaties and covenants, including the United Nations Universal Declaration of

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 130

Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. However the act of ratification does not create any new legal obligation under Australian law. This requires Parliament to formalise such obligations within Australian law itself. Without any domestic legislative basis, individuals have no legal recourse for a failure to take action to implement any rights identified within such international treaties.

This situation arises from the fact that the Constitution provides the Prime Minister with the power to make international agreements. Nonetheless it is a limited power because without provisions within Australian legislation, such agreements do not have the force of law. Therefore there is no mandatory compliance requirement or accountability in terms of meeting the obligations of such international agreements.

Despite a number of efforts to promote the establishment of a constitutional recognition of rights, this has failed to attract sufficient traction from the electorate. 12 In 1973 Attorney General Lionel Murphy introduced a Human Rights Bill, the main aim of which was to implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However in his Second Reading Speech, the Attorney General noted with respect to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that progressive implementation of its terms is required of a party to it. Its terms are not so amenable to direct legislative enactment as those of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In essence Murphy recognised that there was a quantum of difference between the protection of rights and an impost on government to deliver on economic or social rights. This approach then safeguarded the Government against future obligations to deliver. Ironically, in arguing for the legislation of civil and political rights, Murphy further observed during the Second Reading Speech on the 21 November, “The common law is powerless to protect them against the written laws and regulations made by Parliament, by Executive Government under delegated legislative authority, and by local government and other local authorities. Common law rights exist only in the interstices of statutory regulation” (Commonwealth of Australia, House of Representatives 1973). The Bill was not supported and lapsed with the dismissal of the Whitlam Government in November 1974 and calling of a national election.

12 This deficiency in legislative force was noted by the Committee on Economic and Social Rights in providing concluding comments to the Australian Government’s third periodic report in which it was stated “The committee regrets that, because the Covenant has not been entrenched as law in the domestic legal order, its provisions cannot be invoked by a court of law” (CESCR 2000).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 131

A decade later, a draft bill of rights was prepared under the leadership of the Attorney General Gareth Evans. This version was limited to Government actions rather than the broader application of its predecessor. However it never reached the floor of Parliament. In 1985 the Attorney General, Lionel Bowen introduced to Parliament a redrafted Bill which was substantially weaker than those presented by either Murphy or Evans. The failure of the Bill to pass through the Senate resulted in its ultimate withdrawal. In speaking against the Bill, senators from the Opposition, both National and Liberal Parties, offered quite contradictory criticisms of the legislation – from its ability to impact on states’ rights, to the lack of application to states, to the need for greater protections, to the need for no further protections than accorded by the Constitution.

Following the failure to achieve legislative change, Prime Minister Hawke convened a Constitutional Commission to review the Australian Constitution, with terms of reference that included “to ensure that democratic rights are guaranteed.” Based on the advice of the Commission, the Government placed four bills before Parliament all of which passed both the House and Senate. In a public referendum the Government sought consent of the population to amend the Constitution to incorporate basic rights to trial by jury, to extend freedom of religion, and to ensure fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by any government. None of the four proposals were able to garner adequate support, with rights proposals receiving only 30% of the popular vote.

Given the failure to achieve either political or public support for amendment to the Constitution, the primary legislation upon in which any legal obligations for human rights are articulated is the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act (HREOC). HREOC is also responsible for oversight of the Age Discrimination Act 2004, Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Importantly, none of these Acts lay the foundation for positive rights but rather are limited to offering protection against specific forms of discrimination and in certain circumstances rather than discrimination in general.

By addressing discrimination through individual complaint, the law has the force of atomising discrimination and in this way becomes a force of control rather than anti- discriminatory. A corollary to this is the fact that there is no prohibition under existing

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 132 legislation, which makes it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of social or economic status. Thornton (1990) argued that sustained discrimination through institutions, including the law, serves to further dis-empower and minimises the value of legislative imposts. She concluded by reflecting on the paradox of a rationality that promotes the virtues of individualism and social equality whilst creating a hierarchy based on wealth and power, enables discrimination based on group and fails to challenge the basic inequalities inherent in capitalism.

Although the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act sets out some responsibilities with respect to international agreements, the scope of matters that are within the purview of the Commission are limited. There is no explicit provision with respect to economic, social or cultural rights. It is relevant to note that Schedule 3 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act provides for a child’s entitlement to free and compulsory education and to ‘enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity.” This includes, within principle 4,

The child shall enjoy the benefits of social security. He shall be entitled to grow and develop in health; to this end, special care and protection shall be provided both to him and to his mother, including adequate prenatal and postnatal care. The child shall have the right to adequate nutrition, housing, recreation and medical services (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act 1986).

Although it was this Schedule that enabled the commissioning of the 1989 national enquiry into youth homelessness, the Schedule has not had any wider application in terms of Government commitment to ‘the right to housing’ as an operational objective.

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is responsible for oversight and promotion of rights as set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons and the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons, and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. Practically, this responsibility is not complemented by any power of enforcement.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 133

In place of enforcement, the Commission is able to exercise its responsibility by holding national inquiries, reviewing legislation, making submissions to public inquiries and providing policy advice to the Government. The Commissioner also has a role in providing community education through public speaking. In the case that a complaint is brought to the Commission on a matter of breach of rights under such Agreements, the Commission is empowered to investigate and to facilitate conciliation. However, complainants have no right to judicial recourse should such conciliation be unsuccessful. The powers then of the Commission are effectively limited to a reporting function, with no substantive ability to affect action with respect to the promotion or upholding of the rights set out in the agreed Covenants.

Although members of Australia’s High Court asserted that International Covenants to which Australia is a signatory may be considered in the review of administrative decision making, the Government sought to over-ride this interpretation by Act of Parliament. This difference in viewpoint between the High Court and the Government was highlighted as a consequence of an appeal against deportation. In the case of the Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Ah Hin Teoh, 1995, Chief Justice Mason and Justice Deane observed that “If the language of the legislation is susceptible of construction which is consistent with the terms of the International instrument and the obligations which it imposes in Australia, then that construction should prevail” (Nicholson 2004, 35). This decision then had significant implications for the ratification of international human rights agreements by the Australian Government.

However, on the 10 May 1995 the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Gareth Evans and the Attorney General Michael Lavach, issued a Joint Statement representing the Government position and asserted that,

…the High Court gives little if any guidance on how decision makers are to determine which of those treaty provisions will be relevant and to what decisions the provisions might relevant, and because of the wide range and large number of decisions potentially affected by the decision, a great deal of uncertainty has been introduced into government activity. It is not in anybody’s interests to allow such uncertainty to continue (Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, 1995).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 134

Further the Statement concluded that: ..We state on behalf of the Government, that entering into an international treaty is not reason for raising any expectation that government decisions will act in accordance with the treaty if the relevant provisions of the treaty have not been enacted into domestic Australian law. Any expectation that may arise does not provide a ground for review of a decision. This is so, both for the existing treaties and for future treaties that Australia may join (Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, 1995).

As a consequence the Keating Government introduced the Administrative Decisions (effect of International Instruments) Bill 1995, which sought to place in law that being signatory to any international instruments does not give rise to legitimate expectation on the part of any person or that any administration will be made in conformity with any such agreement. In concise terms, the passage of this bill would mean that there was no national obligation to act with respect to international Agreements in the absence of domestic legislation.

The 1996 election interrupted before this Bill was passed. However in 1997 the then Coalition Government introduced a similar bill which although supported by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, similarly lapsed with the calling of the 1998 election. Although reintroduced in 1999, the Bill ultimately lapsed in 2001.

Despite the various circumstances impacting on the passage of this Bill, there was, and remains, political unanimity in opposing the application of International Agreements within legal or judicial frameworks. Again, this view was strongly opposed by the United Nations Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights which in its 2000 Concluding Comments on Australia’s third progress report asserted that it “encourages the State party to follow the High Court’s position concerning ‘legitimate expectations’ arising from the ratification of the Covenant” (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Concluding Observations on Australia 2000, n.p.).

This unwillingness to make a statutory commitment to implementation has not been questioned by subsequent administrations. In submitting its National Action for Human Rights in 1994, 1995, 1996 and 2004 to the United Nations, the Australian Government asserted that:

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 135

The Australian Government recognises that, at a fundamental level, the promotion and protection of human rights is best achieved though strong and robust democratic institutions such as an independent judiciary, responsible and accountable government, the rule of law, well resourced and respected opposition parties, and a free media (Commonwealth of Australia, Attorney General’s Department 2004, 5, 8).

Despite this reluctance to move beyond informal means as a signatory to the ICESCR Australia does have accountabilities with respect to its implementation of the rights under this Agreement. The Australian Government in its 1998 report to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) reiterated its reticence to adopt any statutory imperatives by saying “in many cases rights are more readily promoted by less formal processes (than traditional legal sanctions), often associated with inquiry, conciliation and report” (cited by Otto 2002, 272). This is a restatement of the position of Lionel Murphy some 25 years prior. Although it is acknowledged that international human rights norms and conventions can influence administrative decision-making, statutory interpretation and judicial interpretation of the constitution, this remains wholly discretionary (Otto 2002, 278).

International Conventions and the Rights of the Homeless Ultimately of course acceptance of housing as a fundamental human right is not the issue here. The issue is protecting and promoting that right (Sidoti 1996, 8).

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil Rights are the primary internationally endorsed statements of human rights. These documents are augmented by a range of additional instruments, designed to address the specific rights of children, of people with disabilities, or workers, and the like. Critically each of these instruments specifically nominates and commits to the right to adequate housing.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the World Health Organisation (WHO), Habitat International have highlighted that the right to housing is inherently linked to the ability to ‘the full enjoyment’ of other rights such as an adequate standard of living, health, security, non discrimination and the right to privacy. Further the World Health Organisation has identified housing as the most important environmental

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 136 factor associated with increased morbidity, mortality and disease (UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1994). It is well recognised that there is a fundamental interdependence between Civil Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The rights set out in each Covenant, Declaration and Instrument requires a holistic view of government interventions, rather than simply that associated with housing policy. Social and income supports, health, education and welfare policies and practices are individually and collectively methods by which the obligation to promote and protect such rights are to be met.

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that, Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Article 11.1 of the Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights requires that all signatories to the Covenant “ recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions ” (International Covenant 1966, n.p.).

The Committee for the Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) acknowledged the importance of ensuring that the term housing is understood as being more than shelter. In the first General Comment by the CESCR, the Committee provided seven indicators of adequacy, one of which is affordability. This includes security of tenure, availability of services, materials and infrastructure, affordability, habitability, accessibility, location and culturally adequate (Office of the High Commissioner, 1989, n.p.). Subsequently in General Comment 4 (1991), the Committee noted that:

The right to housing should not be interpreted in a narrow or restrictive sense which equates it with, for example, the shelter provided by merely having a roof over one's head or views shelter exclusively as a commodity. Rather it should be seen as the right to live somewhere in security, peace and dignity. This is appropriate for at least two reasons. In the first place, the right to housing is integrally linked to other human

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 137

rights and to the fundamental principles upon which the Covenant is premised. This "the inherent dignity of the human person" from which the rights in the Covenant are said to derive requires that the term "housing" be interpreted so as to take account of a variety of other considerations, most importantly that the right to housing should be ensured to all persons irrespective of income or access to economic resources. Secondly, the reference in article 11 (1) must be read as referring not just to housing but to adequate housing. As both the Commission on Human Settlements and the Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000 have stated: "Adequate shelter means ... adequate privacy, adequate space, adequate security, adequate lighting and ventilation, adequate basic infrastructure and adequate location with regard to work and basic facilities - all at a reasonable cost” (Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights 1991, n.p.)

The right to housing is specifically contained in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as the Convention on Economic and Social Rights. In considering how and to what extent the guarantees articulated in these documents are meaningfully implemented through Australian Government legal, policy and strategy, it is relevant to highlight the specific provisions and explanatory commentary that form the authorised interpretation of such rights.

Principle 4 of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child states that The child shall enjoy the benefits of social security. He shall be entitled to grow and develop in health; to this end, special care and protection shall be provided both to him and to his mother, including adequate pre-natal and post-natal care. The child shall have the right to adequate nutrition, housing, recreation and medical services.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child expands upon this right noting that income support may not be sufficient to achieve an adequate standard of living for children. Accordingly Article 27 requires that the State also provide any material or social support, ‘particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing’ to enable other rights to be achieved. This includes to ‘grow and develop in health’ as well as to realise the child’s rights to education, dignity and freedom. Further, children are to be protected from exploitation and abuse.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 138

Similarly the right to housing is established in such complementary instruments as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979), and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951). Australia is a signatory to each of these instruments.

Obligations as a Signatory The CESCR is a critical document in terms the specific obligations of Australia to take action to ensure that the rights enumerated in this Covenant are practically achieved. Article 2(1) of the CESCR states that: Each State party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and cooperation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realisation of the rights recognised in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.

The requirements and expectations associated with Article 2(1) are articulated in further detail through the Committee’s General Comments. In General Comment 2 the Committee highlights that the intent of this Article is to establish an obligation of both conduct (that which is done) and an obligation of results (that which is achieved.) Further it is recommended that States should within their reporting regime not only what has been done, but equally why this has been considered ‘the most appropriate’ under the circumstances (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1990).

General Comment 3 continues to note that based on the experience of the Committee

over a period of more than a decade of examining States parties' reports the Committee is of the view that a minimum core obligation to ensure the satisfaction of, at the very least, minimum essential levels of each of the rights is incumbent upon every State party. Thus, for example, a State party in which any significant number of individuals is deprived of essential foodstuffs, of essential primary health care, of basic shelter and housing, or of the most basic forms of education is, prima facie, failing to discharge its obligations under the Covenant (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1990).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 139

The Committee provides specific guidance on the interpretation and intended meaning of Article 11.1 the Right to Adequate Housing, in General Comment 4 (1991). This includes the expectation that the State will need to establish a clear strategy for how it will meet its implementation obligations. Article 12 notes that,

While the most appropriate means of achieving the full realization of the right to adequate housing will inevitably vary significantly from one State party to another, the Covenant clearly requires that each State party take whatever steps are necessary for that purpose. This will almost invariably require the adoption of a national housing strategy which, as stated in paragraph 32 of the Global Strategy for Shelter, "defines the objectives for the development of shelter conditions, identifies the resources available to meet these goals and the most cost-effective way of using them and sets out the responsibilities and time-frame for the implementation of the necessary measures". Both for reasons of relevance and effectiveness, as well as in order to ensure respect for other human rights, such a strategy should reflect extensive genuine consultation with, and participation by, all of those affected, including the homeless, the inadequately housed and their representatives. Furthermore, steps should be taken to ensure coordination between ministries and regional and local authorities in order to reconcile related policies (economics, agriculture, environment, energy, etc.) with the obligations under Article 11 of the Covenant (Office of the United National High Commissioner for Human Rights 1991).

Further, Article 14 of the General Comment states that: “In essence, the obligation is to demonstrate that, in aggregate, the measures being taken are sufficient to realize the right for every individual in the shortest possible time in accordance with the maximum of available resources” (Office of the United National High Commissioner for Human Rights 1991).

Despite requirements of accountability about actions that demonstrate compliance with the CESCR, as with the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, there are no substantive mechanisms of enforcement. Although countries are required to report every five years, 13 the Committee is able only to comment on the level or nature of

13 The first report is due one year after signing, and then on subsequent five year intervals .

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 140 compliance but has no mechanism for action in cases of non compliance. There is also no provision for action on the basis of complaints. There have been discussions for some 15 years around the development of an Optional Protocol which would enable the Committee to enquire, intervene and adjudicate in the case of alleged infringements of rights articulated by the Convention. This would create a power and process then for redressing violations and systematic abuse of rights. However there has been limited capacity to overcome the political resistance of members to providing the Committee with such powers.

Economic, social and cultural rights differ from other rights, such as civil and political rights, as they create what Bailey (1997) described as a claim upon the Government. In contrast other rights operate more as a claim against the state in that there is an obligation to ensure that the Government does not infringe on people’s rights, including by discrimination. In contrast Economic, Social and Cultural Rights require Government to take positive action to ensure such rights are attainable by the population as a whole. It is argued that it is this explicit obligation which successive governments have sought to avoid by not incorporating such rights into legislation or through any non statutory means.

Failure to Address Homelessness: Rights, Rhetoric and Values Proponents of action to address the needs of the homeless, and those experiencing the extremes of poverty more broadly, have historically relied upon a measure of relative need as the basis for argument. However over the last decade social, legal and community advocates have adopted the rhetoric of human rights as the basis of argument. (Sackville 2004; Lynch and Cole 2007; Otto 2002). Such argument has depended largely upon Australia’s obligations under International Covenants.

Critically, the failure to respond to either argument, that of distributive justice or human rights obligations, has not, and is not, simply a matter of resources or expenditure. There are significant economic, social and political values that have shaped the way the Australian Government has chosen to interpret these obligations. It is the philosophic and political rationalities of successive Australian Governments that have created a fundamental schism with the principles of rights and which in turn explains the failure of national Governments to meaningfully respond to homelessness or to deliver any significant effort to ensure access to a right to housing in Australia.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 141

A headline in the Weekend Australian in January 2008 captured a fundamental political reality at the time: “Market truth trumps moral pressure” (Weekend Australian, 5 th -6th January 2008). The last thirty five years has seen the adoption by the Australian Government of an economic rationalist political discourse, based on a belief that market forces are better able to coordinate and distribute social and economic resources (Dunstan 1997). As can be demonstrated, this political, social and economic discourse is inherently in conflict with the values and moral frameworks which shape the human rights discourse. As Pusey described it,

We find that this state apparatus is caught within projections of reality that give primacy to "the economy", second place to the political order, and third place to the social order. Indeed, perhaps the most central finding is that, since the 1970s, reality has been turned upside down and society has been recast as the object of politics (rather than, at least in the norms of the earlier discourses, as the subject of politics) ... The tail that is the economy wags the dog that is society (Pusey 1991, 3).

Examination of the policy, program and practices at the national level reveals a social and economic rationality which is contrary to the belief in or commitment to the progressive implementation of the right to adequate housing. The absence of any national housing strategy is only one indicator of the lack of intent. Similarly, consideration of both housing specific and income support programs evidences the lack of commitment to such rights. Further, there are no demonstrable actions that can be held up as practical steps to address discrimination or to meet the requirements of the Rights of Children. It is the lack of any substantive evidence of action that when held up to scrutiny that would contradict the conclusion that f the Government has failed to satisfy Australia’s obligation under both the CESCR and the CRC.

In reporting to the CESCR on its compliance with the Covenant, the Australian Government said that “While most people are able to house themselves, low-income earners and those without employment are sometimes unable to compete in the housing market. In recognition of the right to adequate housing for all, assistance is available. The Commonwealth Department of Social Security is responsible for strategies to assist low- income earners, and people otherwise disadvantaged, to meet their housing needs.”

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 142

(Commonwealth Government 1998. Periodic Report 3 para 316). This statement serves to obscure not only the outcomes of policy and practice as failing to meet CESCR obligations, but also that such failure is both acceptable and expected within the context of the prevailing economic, social and political values.

Housing Programs The sharing of responsibility for the delivery of housing programs between the Commonwealth and the State/Territory governments does not in any way expunge responsibility of the Australian Government for ensuring the delivery of the right to adequate housing. Further, the manner in which such shared agreements are negotiated becomes a practical tool for ensuring that the rationalities which underpin the national government’s thinking are effectively transmitted to and taken up by the state and territory governments.

The Commonwealth State Housing Agreement (CSHA), was enabled by the Housing Assistance Act 1996, forms the basis from which the Australian Government has provided funding to individual State and Territory Governments for the provision of housing. Funding has been variously employed for the provision of public housing; to support access to home ownership and for the provision of social housing that is delivered by the non-Government sector.

The Act did not, however, create any requirement on behalf of the Government to implement obligations to ensure access to adequate housing. The Act specified that its overall aim is to provide housing assistance by which people can obtain affordable, secure and appropriate housing . Further the Act prescribes that the allocation of support be determined on the basis that target housing assistance to those most in need, including the homeless and those discriminated against in the private rental market (Commonwealth Government Housing Assistance Act, 1996). By definition, the intent does not reflect a commitment to a universal right to housing, whether through public, social or private means. In its own objects then, the Act establishes restrictive criteria by which assistance may or may not be provided. In practical terms Government is not obligated to assist all those who are homeless or experience discrimination, but rather those who fall within a prescribed ‘target’ system.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 143

Because funding for public and community housing through the CSHA declined by some 54% over the previous decade, with parallel reduced investments by State and Territory housing authorities, waiting lists and wait times for public housing grew, with increasingly restrictive approaches to prioritisation of greatest need (ACIR 1984, 37). This reflects the schism between the expectation that steps are taken ‘with a view to achieving progressively the full realisation of the rights recognised’, as required by the CESCR but is consistent with the intention of the Act and the outcomes from Government’s public housing policy.

Although funding for community housing has accounted for only a small proportion of overall housing expenditure, since 2001 it has become an increasingly different housing sector from that of its origins. This change is a reflection of broader government policy with respect to meeting its housing obligations. Community housing was historically managed by local governments and the non government, not for profit sector originating in, and working from, the local community. The principle object of community housing at its inception was to provide low cost housing for blue collar workers. However, it has changed dramatically and primarily offers housing to people who are amongst the most disadvantaged, with over three quarters being on income support and disability pensions, and increasingly the homeless (National Community Housing Forum 2003, AIHW 2007). This in turn had the flow on effect of pushing an increasing proportion of low income workers into unsustainable housing stress (that is expending more than half their weekly income on rent alone).

The most fundamental change in the sector has been the expectation that community housing would operate not on a social or philanthropic basis but rather on a commercial basis. Examination of the National Community Housing Framework, established as an agreement between the Australian Government and the representatives of the community housing sector, confirms the shift from concern with housing outcomes to one of economic outcomes. The Government’s interest in and active pursuit of a private sector model within the community sector is consistent with the dominant economic rationalist perspective. The five priorities under the National Community Housing Framework 2004- 2008 were to:

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 144

• promote investment and productive partnerships that results in the growth and overall strengthening of community housing nationally • achieve a national coordinated approach to community housing that delivers cost- effective outcomes through best practice.

• ensure the community housing industry is competent, viable, and effective in all aspects of its business.

• deliver quality outcomes to tenants and applicants, and generate higher levels of confidence in the sector, through the ongoing implementation of consistent and robust quality control mechanisms.

• promote tenants’ involvement in the provision of community housing, and support a higher level of tenant participation in social, political, and economic life.

The commitment to focus on growing private sector investment, in developing financial models that mirror the private sector within the community sector and the importance of financial viability substantially reshaped the nature of social housing. The practical outcome was to move the social housing sector into a private sector model and to encourage (through financial incentives) the merging of these two models of social and private housing provision. The implications of this shift was significant, particularly for those with the greatest financial disadvantage. For example, concurrent with the closure of boarding houses in New South Wales and Queensland in 1999-2000, State Housing Authorities stepped in establishing a more commercially based alternatives with public financial incentives. The Brisbane Housing Company, born out of this process is one example. Although the units being produced was of a higher standard, the new housing was no longer affordable for those who had previously resided in the boarding and lodging houses. To illustrate, the rental costs in the newly constructed accommodation being managed by a housing company intended to operate on a private sector model, ranged from 39%-46% of a single person pension (with and without rent assistance).

The pressure for the social housing providers and the welfare sector in general to adopt a business model has accompanied the expansion of the economic values and priorities of the Australian Government. In 1999 Bill Lipmann, Chief Executive Officer of Wintringham,

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 145 speaking at an Aged Care Conference challenged the wisdom of this direction. He warned that in working to the ‘bottom line’ the core philosophical values upon which service delivery is predicated.

My concern is that if we allow market forces to totally dominate the way we think about our work, all of society eventually loses...In an effort to target the public dollar spent on welfare services, economic rationalists frequently attempt to transfer from the business environment, concepts and systems which are wholly unsuited to a group of people who are unable to compete equally with other stronger and better resourced members of society (Lipmann 1999, 8).

Rent Assistance – A Strategy that does not deliver The adoption of Commonwealth Rent Assistance as a primary tool in Australian Government’s housing strategy reflects not only a disengagement from a public obligation, but equally a growing reliance on the private sector to deliver social outcomes. The effectiveness of rent assistance as a vehicle for redressing housing risk or homelessness was further diminished by the low levels of affordability of rental housing in Australia. The 2nd Annual Demographia International Housing Survey 2006 found that “Australia had the most pervasive housing affordability crisis. Sydney Hobart and Adelaide were ranked the most unaffordable housing markets” (Annual Demographia 2006, 5). This mirrored the findings of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development 2005 study of rental affordability in which it was reported that “Australia had the highest prices relative to rental levels, the third highest prices relative to incomes, and the fourth highest levels of household debt relative to incomes” (Report of the Special Rapporteur 2005) .

Eligibility criteria for Rent Assistance limits access even among the most disadvantaged. This has meant the exclusion of students over 25 receiving Austudy benefits, and any other individual or household not in receipt of Government income support, irrespective of their level of income or capacity. This has particular implications for homeless people who are generally most disadvantaged in accessing or maintaining income support arrangements, particularly since the introduction of the mutual obligation requirements (Centrelink 2009, http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/rent_eligible.htm).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 146

The combination of restricted access to financial assistance (through either Rent Assistance or general income support), the reduction in public housing stock and increasing market rental costs exacerbated the housing problem. In an environment in which home purchase prices pushed many young people out of the market place and at the same time contributed to an increase in housing foreclosures, there has been growing demand for private rentals, further reducing availability even at the ‘top end’ of the market. These trends culminated in significantly diminished availability of affordable housing options not only for the homeless, but also for those at the margins of poverty. As noted by the Australian Federation of Homeless Organisations and cited by Nicholson (2004, 38), rental assistance ‘does not achieve housing affordability and has a limited impact on the key housing assistance objectives of security, adequacy and appropriateness”.

National Homelessness Strategy - A Discourse of Other The Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP), established through the SAAP Act, remains the flagship of the Australian Government response to homelessness. The preamble to the Act asserts that “Australia has acted to protect the rights of all its citizens, including people who or homeless or at risk of homelessness, by recognising international standards of universal rights and fundamental freedoms” through ratification on International Covenants and the Human Rights and Equality Opportunity Act. Further, “The Parliament intends that the Commonwealth Government should work co-operatively with State and Territory governments to ensure that people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness are given opportunities to redress their circumstances and that their universal human rights are not prejudiced by the manner in which services are provided to them” (Preamble, Supported Accommodation Assistance Act 1994).

There are two critical aspects of the rhetoric of this preamble that are revealing. The first critical element is the emphasis on redressing ‘their circumstances’ that homeless people are in. In practical terms this is the discourse of ‘others’; that is people are homeless because of ‘their circumstances’ (and therefore resolutions are within their own capacity) rather than any external factors such as lack of affordable housing or poverty. The second significant element is the prioritising of ‘how services are provided’ again serves to orient solutions away from any structural considerations.

This rhetoric is repeated in the National Homelessness Strategy. Through articulation of the aims of the Strategy and the allocation of funding solely to initiatives which further these

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 147 aims, the discourse remained firmly rooted in the belief that homelessness can best be addressed by service systems rather than addressing any non service related factors. The National Homelessness Strategy had as its aims to:

• Provide a strategic framework that will improve collaboration and linkages between existing programmes and services, to improve outcomes for clients and reduce the incidence of homelessness; • Identify best practice models, which can be promoted and replicated, that will enhance existing homelessness policies and programmes; • Build the capacity of the community sector to improve linkages and networks; and • Raise awareness of the issue of homelessness throughout all areas and levels of government and in the community.

Critically, none of the projects funded under the NHS provided new housing options. Although the discussion paper, ” Working Towards a National Homelessness Strategy ” (2000) acknowledged the critical nature of poverty and lack of affordable of housing, recommendations associated with these critical considerations were largely ignored in both the priorities of the Strategy and its resource allocations.

The Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) has been touted both within Australia and internationally as the Australian Government’s premier response to homelessness. Despite acknowledgement of the CESCR principles, the Act does not in any practical way assert or commit to ensuring the provision of a universal right to housing. The process of selectivity, the eviction of tenants from both public housing and social housing to homelessness, and the terms and conditions associated with eligibility and maintenance of tenure are substantive barriers to meeting international norms for the provision of housing. In the framework and operation of the SAAP program, access to housing, albeit transitional, is in effect a privilege rather than a right.

Neither the SAAP Act nor its expression through program and funding provide for the right to adequate housing. The criteria that are used to select who is and who is not able to be assisted, by definition conflict with the notion of a right to adequate housing. Although there is some acknowledgement of user rights, this is in no way equivalent to a right to housing. In fact, there is evidence that SAAP services have in the past evicted tenants into

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 148 homelessness either due limitations on length of stay permitted under funding agreements and in some cases for breaches in payment of rent or other conditions of tenancy (Forell 2005, Thompson 2005). The legitimacy of such evictions, taking into account that SAAP is the most likely last option for the poor and homeless, was reflected by the NSW SAAP Framework in 2001 which required that “clear processes are in place to manage service evictions in a manner that ensures the client is treated fairly and is safe “(SAAP 2001, 22). Forced eviction which results in homelessness is indirect conflict with the conditions of the CESCR and its interpretation.

As with public housing, funding for SAAP has failed to meet the level of demand. This is best evidenced by the turn away rates as reported to and by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. The AIHW reported that half of people seeking SAAP assistance are ‘turned away’ and three out of every four children were unable to access SAAP accommodation upon request. This rate of unmet need was reported annually in 2004- 2006 (AIHW 2001,2004, 2006a, 2006b.)

The CESCR in General Comment 4 set out a detailed explanation of the intent of the right to housing in which it asserted that this is not intended to be limited to the notion of ‘shelter’, but rather to the right to live somewhere in security, peace and dignity. Further, it articulates seven criteria which are associated with adequacy of housing, including: • Security of tenure • Availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure • Affordability • Habitability • Accessibility • Location • Cultural adequacy.

Further, General Comment 7 notes that the State is obligated to ensure that individuals are not rendered homeless or vulnerable to the violation of other rights as a result of evictions. Adopting these criteria and standards as a benchmark for analysis of Australian Government national homelessness strategies as set out, it is clear that it fails on the basis of a number of such requirements, including that of security of tenure, affordability and accessibility.

Political Rationalities, Poverty, Social Policy and Rights Economy on the Brink of Recovery but Jobs Remain Grim

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 149

(Gowdie, 1991)

Poverty is arguably a primary cause of homelessness. Despite the myriad of literature linking homelessness with a variety of social, personal and economic factors, this serves largely to distract from the fundamental inability of those in poverty to afford private housing costs or to access public or community housing. Poverty is understood to embrace more than financial disadvantage. Further, homelessness needs to be understood as more than simply lacking shelter. As noted by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner in 1996, C. Soditi, homelessness has a consequential impact on the realisation of many other rights, such as access to education for children and the ability to access entitlements available to those who are housed. Failure to address poverty renders the homeless marginalised from interdependent basic rights accorded the general population.

Article 9 of the ICESCR obliges signatories, including Australia, to provide for the social security of the population through the provision of the ability to acquire basic means where individuals are unable to do so. Indeed, the inter-dependency between poverty and ability to access basic needs was recognised in the Australian Government National Action Plan for Human Rights, in which it is stated,

The Government recognises that poverty also acts to reduce participation in all facets of life necessary to fully enjoy individual human rights. A comprehensive system of social security payments, targeted at those in need, provides a safety net to assist those who are unable to fully support themselves, whether because of age, illness or disability, caring responsibilities or unemployment (Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department 2004, 11).

However, in addressing social security, the national approach might be described generously as aspirational. From a practical perspective, the Australian Government’s interpretation of its responsibilities in responding to poverty (and its corollary homelessness) has been determined on the basis of those rationalities which circumscribe the relationship of government to the population.

A critical influence on successive Australian Governments was the fundamental belief in the primacy of the individual as a self governing citizen, responsible for his own conduct and

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 150 for ensuring that such conduct is consistent with the expectations of social and economic norms of independence. Crinall (2006) highlighted the significance of this legacy from the British colonial days. By bringing a belief in and acceptance of inequality as a condition which could be overcome through industrious habits and moral judgement, the British demonstrated through the system of rewards and punishment, the value of self reliance, enterprise and hard work (Crinall 2006, 74-75). This belief was consistent with and supportive of an equally fundamental confidence in the pre-eminent importance of an economy driven by individual enterprise. From the arguments of Adam Smith (who noted that the market was ‘like an invisible hand’ which guides us to economic prosperity), 19 th century liberalism to 20 th century neo-liberalism, there has been a consistent belief that the market economy is best placed to enable the individual to achieve such independence (Hindess 2001).

The Australian Government’s view of its responsibilities for the amelioration of poverty has evolved in response to shifting economic conditions. Access to income support has never been viewed as a right, but rather as a privilege. Whether recipients are old, have a disability, are unemployed or a war widow, the payment of income support is subject to the vagaries of changing government rationalities. Foucault explains the exercise of this power in terms of governmentality in which ”the tactics of government which make possible the continual definition and redefinition of what is within the competence of the state and what is not, the public versus the private etc” (Foucault 1978, 167).

The conclusion emerging from this discourse is that failure to achieve personal autonomy (as evidenced by the conception of an individualised poverty) is the outcome of a failure of the individual. Such failure should not be rewarded, but rather should be addressed either by remedial action (e.g. education and training) or authoritarian regulation (e.g. from the early workhouses to the current ‘mutual obligation’ requirements). The former is intended to compensate for the perceived deficiency of the individual to work effectively in the open market, and the latter to ingrain good habits versus the bad, and to control, if not outwardly reject, the ‘the bludger and the scam artist’ who otherwise would be happy to live off the state beneficence. The aim then of such techniques of Government is to establish rules, mechanisms and processes which are founded upon a logic of discipline which create the conditions needed for the self regulation and autonomy of the free citizen (Foucault, 1977; Rose 1993). Within a liberal framework, this is described by Rose as

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 151 governing “though society, that is to say, through acting upon them in relation to a social norm” and subsequently in a neo-liberal context of the late twentieth century as governing ‘though the regulated choices of individual citizens” (Rose 1993, 285). It is an atomising process by which the problem is one of the individual and can be resolved only through the reformation of the individual. The consequences have been felt most by those in poverty.

The provision of income support by the Government is not in any way connected to an acceptance of the notion of universal entitlement, obligation or right. Rather it has been and remains available only to those considered deserving. Rigorous assessment criteria used to determine eligibility create a gateway through which individuals must pass and are applied at the sole discretion of the government agency. Inadequate income, that is poverty, is not sufficient to warrant an entitlement to assistance.

Although there was considerable debate with respect to welfare programs during the 1920’s and 1930’s, the primary options considered were a contributions-based scheme, during the Cook Government, and a national insurance scheme which was introduced to the 1938 Parliament but failed to garner adequate support. Following the depression period, unemployment and sickness benefits were brought into being during the Chifley and Curtin Governments. In fact the terminology, the use of the term ‘benefit’ is a useful reflection of the perception of such support and the recipients of it.

Over the next two decades there was little change to the welfare system, largely due to a period of relatively high employment and general social stability. However, the Fraser Government introduced an economic rationalist discourse. This was reflected in a number of changes to the social security system, and with changes introduced sequentially over the following decade. Amongst the changes introduced by the Fraser Government was the establishment of waiting periods prior to being eligible for any support for school leavers and the voluntarily unemployed. In addition, it was deemed reasonable to expect single people over 18 to be willing to relocate to find work. Skilled workers who had not found employment within six weeks were required to accept any unskilled work whether or not this involved a loss of wages or status. Casual, temporary or part time work opportunities had to be accepted, and if refused, benefits were discontinued. Grounds for failing the work test, and therefore ineligibility for benefit were expanded. For example, any work offer which entailed travelling costs of 10% of wages could not be refused (previously 5%).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 152

Further it was possible to be failed in meeting the work test on the grounds of unacceptable dress or appearance (Daniels, 1995).

The first major review of the welfare system was established in 1986 by Brian Howe, then Minister for Social Security. The key areas upon which the review was to focus were income support for families with children and aged, social security and employment issues. The outcome of the 1986 review was to introduce a new way of seeing the payment of social security, and in particular with respect to support for those unemployed. The most critical change was described in a Parliamentary e-brief as “signifying a shift from passive to active assistance” (Yeend 2000,n.p.). Active assistance introduced new compulsory requirements including registration with the Commonwealth Employment Service, personal lodgement of fortnightly income and work search effort forms, completion of a work intention questionnaire, and compulsory interviews. Some two years later, requirements were increased demanding intensive interviews, tougher work search effort requirements and referral to training and labour market programs (Yeend 2000). Significantly, none of the changes introduced addressed the fundamental systemic economic changes directly impacting on the structure and nature of employment.

A second major review was initiated by the Howard Government in 1999, with the McClure Report being released in 2000. As with its predecessors, the target for reform lay in strategies for encouraging workforce participation and strengthening the requirements of mutual obligation. Accordingly, the recommendations, while lacking in substantive practical prescription, focused on increasing incentives to work. Although in undertaking the review there was acknowledgement of the changes in the employment environment, the limited availability of unskilled work opportunities, and the financial risks associated with an increasing casualised workforce, the terms of reference precluded any consideration of how such structural issues should/could be addressed. As noted by Peter Saunders in his response to the report, the Committee’s concerns with welfare dependency failed to adequately take into account the impact of changes in the economic environment (Saunders 2001).

Each of these successive changes to the social security system entailed increasingly rigorous requirements that in reality made it very difficult for the homeless to achieve compliance. With little regard to the reasons for non participation that underpins the

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 153 disadvantage experienced by the homeless and those in poverty more generally, the regulation of social security further disadvantaged the disadvantaged. Without access to any way to receive Centrelink communication, notifications are never received. An inability to generate the extensive identification requirements, and the ability to attend any regular training regime when just securing a safe place to be and food are the most critical issues, the homeless are subject to regular breaching and therefore loss of financial assistance. It is these regulatory tools that reflect the authoritarian nature of government assistance, active as effective punishment for the failing individual seeking assistance. This ultimately ensures that the provision of social security is neither a right nor entitlement. The introduction of the work for the dole scheme and the language of mutual obligation reflected a shift from a social security based program to an economic program designed to feed the economic policies of Government. Indeed the requirement to sign preparing for work agreements consolidated the adoption of the language of business itself. The difference lies in the matter of choice. While industrial or market place negotiations presuppose some bargaining option, this is not the case with income support. If the option is agree to the ‘obligation’ on the table or destitution, it hardly seems like a choice.

It is the market economy, and not the Government, which is expected to be the primary wellspring from which individual social security is achieved. Calls for reform of welfare have remained couched in the debate not of entitlement but rather in an argument based upon increasingly marginalising the most disadvantaged in meeting the eligibility bar. Speaking at Deakin University in 1971, Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser articulated this rationality in perhaps one of his quotable quotes, “Life was not meant to be easy”. It has been argued that his statement was a reflection of his belief in the values of “ self discipline and individual sacrifice in the cause of national progress ” (Kelly 2000, 360).

It is possible then to infer that the problem perceived by Government lies not in the social sphere, but rather in the economic arena. Given the absence of acknowledgement of either social or systemic disadvantage, the problem is able to be conceived as the failure, willing or unwilling, of the individual. From this perspective then, the obligation lies not in ensuring social security, but rather the ability to demonstrate one is deserving of assistance.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 154

This process of shifting responsibility from the Government to the individual to address circumstances of poverty and consequential homelessness, is in juxtaposition to the expectation of international agreements in which the State is obligated to take ‘action reasonably calculated to realise the enjoyment of a right’ and that steps taken actually do produce the desired results (CESCR 1977). Further, in its General Comment 3, the CESCR noted that any State which fails to ensure that a significant number of individuals are not deprived of essential foodstuffs, of essential primary health care, of basic shelter and housing, or the most basic forms of education, is failing to meet its obligations.

Although there is no specific prescription on how each State should/might approach taking action to secure the rights of its population, it does establish expectations that the actions taken will produce results. Actions without results are considered as non compliant as no actions at all. This is reflected in the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Concluding Comments on Australia’s third report that “The committee notes with concern the absence of an officially set poverty line in Australia has deprived the Committee of the criteria it needs to determine the progress achieved over time by the State party in its efforts to reduce poverty” (CESCR 2000, para 20).

This then generates the questions – to what extent does income support which is provided meet the requirements that enable the individual to move beyond poverty and as a corollary to access housing, and what would the implications be for reducing homelessness specifically and poverty more generally by doing so?

The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research update the Henderson Poverty Line on a quarterly basis for the Brotherhood of St Laurence. In comparing the projected poverty line with income support payments at the last quarter of 2007, it is found that uniformly all categories of recipient received less than the minimum required to be above the poverty line, with young people and those with the head of household are working are most disadvantaged, with couples with children receiving over $120 per fortnight less than the poverty line. For most groups, even adding the rent assistance of payment of some $59 per week average, the total income received via benefits was less than the projected poverty point (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. 2007. Poverty Lines: Australia, March Quarter 2007). The implications then become relatively explicit. To meet what might be considered a bare minimum of income

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 155 for survival would require considerably greater public expenditure even on the basis of the narrow criteria for eligibility. As a proportion of Gross Domestic Product, Australia expends a lower proportion on social security than all but three OECD countries (Income and Poverty 2005).

Governmentality and Human Rights Foucault adopted the word governmentality to describe the governing of others and governing of one’s self in a manner that is consistent with the objectives, and expectations, of governing authorities. The aim of governing is to deliver a rationally administered and managed social order. By governing through the state and other institutions it is possible to shape public and private behaviour in a manner that will ensure the maintenance of such order. However there is a need for the exercise of power and authority where individuals cannot be relied upon to act compliantly. Accordingly, freedom to act or behave is circumscribed by the political rationalities that determine the notion of social order and the exercise of power.

There is then a fundamental misalignment between the expectation that as a signatory to international agreements for the delivery of prescribed human rights and the political rationalities which shape the Australian Government’s view of the desired social order. Entitlements are accrued through compliance, and entitlements are lost for non compliance. Where circumstances create barriers to achievement of autonomous, self reliant and self regulating independence, whether or not such circumstances are structural or systemic to the broader social and economic environment, the response lies largely in further subjugation whether through policy or practice. The fundamental social and philosophic values which have historically underpinned the notion of rights, and more recently universal rights, are ultimately at odds with the prevailing political rationalities.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 156

Chapter 6: Federal Law and Its Relationship to Homelessness

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids all men to sleep under bridges, to bet in the streets, and to steal bread – the rich as well as the poor (Anatole France, 1898).

Introduction This chapter explores the ways in which the legal apparatus of Government has and continues to directly impact on people who experience homelessness. While the historic criminalisation of the homeless by local and state governments has been highlighted in previous chapters, this examination is concerned with the intended and unintended consequences of a sample of legal, policy and program technologies employed by the Australian Government and which have a direct and negative impact on people who are homeless. This requires consideration be given to the specific provisions of the law and to the program and administrative machinery by which the law is translated into practice. It is though this combination of the law and the tools of implementation that Government is able to exercise power over the individual. Rose explains this in terms of governing which he describes as “incorporating apparatus to deal with management at large scale and micro technologies for management of human conduct of individuals in particular locales and practices” (Rose 1999, 5). This is to say, it is through the practical actions of Government agencies that it is possible to view the exercise of power and its consequences.

Law has at its base, the power of application and enforcement. It provides the authority to establish and demand compliance with particular ways of behaving and obligations, codifying them as part of the juridical system (Ewald 1990, 138-139). This has the consequential impact of establishing a basis for differentiating between the norm and abnormal, with compliance with behavioural norms as a duty rather than a choice. It is this power of discipline (in terms of individual compliance and the juridical power of enforcement) that effectively produces and reproduces the standard by which individuals are judged. This in turn helps to define and reflect upon the worthiness of the individual.

Matters of Relevance The criminalisation of the homeless in Australia has its roots in its British origin, transplantation and absorption into the early Australian colony. This has continued to feature in contemporary local and state laws (Lynch, 2003; Walsh, 2006). Criminalisation of

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 157 the act of being poor and homeless is a direct outcome of laws which make it illegal to have no visible means of support, to beg, to sleep or to consume alcohol in public places, as well as being ‘considered a nuisance’ or one of other of public order offences (e.g. more recently ‘move on’ laws or simply being present in commercial centres which can be seen as interfering with retail trade). Equally because detention, arrest and prosecution are at the discretion of law enforcement officers (both state police and local government inspectors), people who are homeless are significantly more vulnerable to the enforcement of such laws (Howse, 2000; Walsh, 2005; Sackville, 1976; Lynch, 2002). Further, people who are homeless are susceptible to harsher treatment by the judicial system as has been well documented (Sackville, 2003; Lynch 2003).

Chapter 5 documents the way in which the legislative framework has failed to protect people who are homeless from explicit discrimination and the absence of such protection arguably enables discriminatory practices to perpetuate. And as a consequence (though not surprisingly), such discrimination contributes to continued economic, social and political disadvantage.

A comprehensive analysis of all national legislation is beyond the capacity of this thesis. As a consequence two areas regulated through national law have been selected for scrutiny due to their substantial influence (and therefore illustrative value) on people who are homeless. This examination of two specific areas of Australian law and related instruments demonstrates a failure to protect as well as an active compromise of the rights of people who are homeless in comparison with the wider Australian community.

Citizenship as a legal status with implied explicit and implicit rights and obligations has since its inception provided a mechanism of exclusion as well as inclusion. This is demonstrably the case when consideration is given to the rationalities that have underpinned the thinking and application of the law and its technologies. It is for this reason that it provides a useful starting point for understanding how legal entitlements associated with the status of citizenship have been denied to those who are homeless.

A second significant legislative framework intended to provide essential protections for members of the Australian community (irrespective of citizenship status) has been the National Privacy Act 1988. Although this legislation, and its various instruments, has had a

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 158 number of iterations, the primary aim has been to regulate the collection, storage and dissemination of personal information about individuals. The National Privacy Act defines personal information as "... information or an opinion (including information or an opinion forming part of a database), whether true or not, and whether recorded in a material form or not, about an individual whose identity is apparent, or can reasonably be ascertained, from the information or opinion" (National Privacy Act, Sec 6).

The Act seeks to control what and how information is collected, its accuracy, the security with which such information is kept, how the information may be used or disclosed and the individual’s right to access that information. Although intended to have a regulatory purpose, the Act is not prescriptive, but rather relies on implementation of National Privacy Principles which form Schedule 3 of the Act. However, limitations of the legislation and the means of enforcement have left many people vulnerable to victimisation as a consequence of the collection and dissemination of information about past rental histories. Indeed it has been argued that the failure of such legislation to be effective in this arena has directly contributed to the incidence and ongoing experience of homelessness (Seelig, 1997; Special Government Backbench Committee, 2002; Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs/Standing Committee on Attorneys General, 2005).

Through these two quite different arenas of statutory involvement by the Australian Government, it is possible to demonstrate the relationship between the law, policy and technologies of Government and the conditions experienced by people who are homeless. Further, it provides a window through which to uncover the way various tentacles of the Australian Government impact on the homeless and which go beyond the arenas of housing or social security policy.

Citizenship, Representative Democracy and the Homeless The notion of citizenship had its birth in ancient Greece. One of the first forms of citizenship was found in the city state of Sparta. Unlike that found in Athens during the same period, the acquisition of the status of citizen was reliant on being locally born and appropriately trained. However citizenship was not automatically accorded even when those minimum requirements were met. Acquisition of the title and privileges of citizenship was reliant on the election and acceptance by other citizens. Further the status

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 159 of citizenship could be revoked where the individual was found to have failed in his in duties as a citizen (Heater 2004, 10).

Citizenship in Athens had a different complexion. The status of citizen translated into the ability to participate in political and legal processes. Aristotle described citizenship in terms of an entitlement to ‘participate in office, deliberate or judicial, we deem him to be a citizen of that state’ and further that citizens are ‘all equally endowed with political wisdom’ (Davidson 1997, 14). Citizenship was neither universal nor inclusive. Males with Athenian parentage and who had completed the necessary training were able to claim citizenship. Foreigners, immigrants or traders, women and slaves were excluded. Further, citizenship was divided into classes differentiating between the wealthy, military and labourers, with public offices being allocated to those in the higher classes. Critically citizenship in the Athenian city state meant an ability to participate in decision making, the right to be a decision maker and the right to take part in judicial (both as a judge and in bringing matters for judicial adjudication) and legislative processes.

Greshon Shafir (1998, 3) described citizenship as it emerged in these early forms as “the legal foundation and the social glue of the new communality”. Yet, the Spartans and Athenians introduced a linkage between property ownership as a prerequisite to citizenship, a linkage which was to endure well into the twentieth century (Heater, 2004, 67).

Under the Roman Republic, and subsequently the Roman Empire, the boundaries of citizenship were extended, although these were not democratic regimes. Slaves and women were still unable to claim the rights of citizens, although some rights were accorded to allies and residents of lands occupied by the Empire. Further, citizenship was granted to the children of freed slaves, to individuals who had provided a service to Rome and could in some circumstances be purchased. Full citizenship included the right to vote and to make a legal contract as well as to have a trial – not to mention being protected against torture irrespective of the crime. Conversely, a second class of citizenship was afforded to other Latin city states overtaken by the Romans excluded the right to vote or to hold public office.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 160

The nation-state model featured the establishment of citizens’ representatives elected by their peers. While the Roman senate was restricted to patricians, free people with citizen status were able to elect peers to their own assemblies as well as official representatives to the senate and whose role was to protect their liberty and interests (Shafir, 1998).14 This created in a practical sense, levels of citizenship and consequent degrees of inclusion in the political and decision making processes.

Early citizenship was characterised by levels of status, entitlements and protections. It also had an underlying message of belonging - that is of being part of and able to participate fully in the community. In this environment the creation of a legal entity, known as a citizen, emerged separate from its Greek predecessor in whom the notion of the good or worthy citizen was the dominant discourse (Heater, 200, 3). However it was the Senate that exercised its authority through the magistrates, tribunals, praetors and consuls and which had the real power to act on behalf of Rome (North 1994, 39).

Given the decline of the Roman Empire and the emergence of the feudal system of the middle ages, the locus of alliance reverted from the national or imperial perspective of the Empire, to that of the town or city and its lord or king. Although of diminishing importance, citizenship continued to be synonymous with status, privilege and duty. Nonetheless, it was not until the emergence of the nation state that citizenship would re-appear as a facet of the relationship between the population and those that governed.

With the amalgamation and materialization of unified nation states under a single monarch, the status of citizenship went through re-invention. Loyalty to the sovereign became the force binding the population, creating the need to balance the identity as subject and that of citizen. Despite the establishment of houses of assembly, the role of citizen was circumscribed to ensure the overarching authority of the sovereign. Jean Bodin, writing in the sixteenth century, articulated this concept of the citizen subject. Bodin argued that the price for the protection of the sovereign is the obligations and duties of a citizen, rejecting the Aristotelian perspective of the relationship between the citizen and the right to govern.

14 It is noted that in classical context of the Greeks and Romans, citizenship was not universal. It was not until the 19th century that citizenship would be extended to men who did not own land and the 20th century before women would be accorded recognition as citizens.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 161

It is a very grave error to suppose that no one is a citizen unless he is eligible for public office, and has a voice in the popular estates, either in a judicial or deliberative capacity. This is Aristotle’s view. It must be emphasized that it is not the rights and privileges which he enjoys which makes a man a citizen, but the mutual obligation between subject and sovereign by which in return for the faith and obedience rendered to him, the sovereign must do justice, and give counsel, assistance and encouragement and protection to the subject (Bodin cited by Hogan 1997, 30).

Defining and granting citizenship has in an historical (and will be argued contemporary) context operated as a technology through which the government makes visible and establishes its relationship with the population as well as the relationship between individuals and groups within the nation (Hindess, 2002, 128; Rubenstein, 2002, 5). Whereas a feudal system or monarchy (or indeed any form of authoritative dictatorship) is hierarchical and reliant on individual loyalty to the ruler, a system based upon citizenship defines the relationship of the individual to the state, with notions of equality, mutual obligation and rights (Heater 2003,2).

Consequently, citizenship entails the dual facets of identity, the identity of the ‘subject to’ and that of ‘individual rights and duties’. Citizenship involves the governing of others and governing of self and as such is a tool which brings together the individualising and integrating practices of government (White and Hunt 2000, 96-97). This is described in terms of involving a respect (for rules) and responsibility (to others) by which citizenship acts as a bridge between the exercise of power and the governing of the self (White and Hunt, 2000,98).

Citizenship involves more than the notion of obligation to the state and to the exercise of the responsibilities that this entails. It also has embedded within it those characteristics which are tacitly if not explicitly ascribed to the ‘good citizen’. The ‘good citizen’ from its earliest origins has been one who is self reliant, industrious, and self governing. Heater (2004, 19) notes that Aristotle articulated four aspects of civil virtues which characterised a good citizen. These included self control, justice, courage and wisdom.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 162

Modern concepts of citizenship are a direct legacy not only of these antecedents but also of the era of revolutions in England, the United States and France and from the writings of such notable proponents of citizen rights and obligations as John Locke and Jan Jacques Rousseau. Whilst eligibility (and in fact legitimacy) has evolved from precedence of lineage, to requisite property ownership, to being a ‘free man’, to the inclusion of women, to the inclusion of Indigenous and other minority populations, the practice of universal citizenship has been and continues to be a political struggle to demonstrate worthiness and to differentiate between those with and without attendant rights.

Modern citizenship, that is post American and French revolutions, is described by Marshall (1950) and Hindess (2002) as encompassing civil rights, political rights, and social rights, which in totality refer to the ability of citizens to participate equally and unencumbered in the social, economic, political way of life available to all citizens of the state. Further, it is the obligation of the Government to ensure the social right of participation is not compromised because (due to) poverty, ill health or lack of education. The loss of citizen rights for criminal conviction is justified then, on the basis of a failure to remain worthy of such rights.

The term citizen, as used in this thesis, refers specifically to the legal status which accords political rights. Although non citizens (e.g. lawful residents) are members of the Australian community and are able to engage in social and economic activity, the ability to participate in the electoral process is the driving force of differentiation.

Historical Perspective on the Defining Citizens in Australia The term citizen is not defined nor does it appear in the Australian Constitution. This is an outcome of a deliberate decision by the framers of the Constitution to exclude any definition or to ascribe any specific rights to citizenship, but rather to leave this to other legislative instruments. In tracing the conventional debates leading to the drafting of the Constitution and subsequent legislative provisions that differentiate between citizens and non citizens, Rubenstein (2002) highlights the inclusion/exclusionary nature of the rationalities that underpinned such decisions. Further, he effectively demonstrates how the status of citizenship in itself is ineffectual with respect to equality of rights. Historically and contemporarily, being a citizen does not confer equal rights.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 163

Records of debate on the creation of the Australian federation, from the 1891 Australasian Convention to the 1897-98 Conventions, highlight not only the ambiguity which surrounded the notion of citizenship, but the inherent acceptance of discrimination as being separate from that of citizenship – that is discrimination based on race, nationality, and gender were not understood as being incompatible with the fundamental principles of citizenship (Galligan and Roberts, 2004; Rubenstein, 2002).

Proponents such as John Quick (Victorian delegate to the Conventions) were eager to include a definition of citizenship as an important vehicle for establishing an Australian identity separate from that of citizen of a state or subject of the British monarch. However, in rejecting this proposal, a strong argument was made for the protection of state rights. This was described in terms of having two types of citizenship- as citizen of the state and citizen of the Commonwealth. The argument was made that the rights of each should not be compromised by the other. For example, James Forrest argued Western Australia’s right to maintain the ban on Asian and African immigrants from obtaining a mining license on a gold field (Galligan and Roberts 2004, 26-27). This argument was articulated by Josiah Synon, South Australian delegate, in saying “the whole purpose of this Constitution is to secure a dual citizenship. That is the very essence of a federal system (cited by Rubenstein 1997, 391). This ultimately was mitigated through Section 117 of the Constitution which states

A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.

Although this did not preclude discrimination, it regulated the practice of discrimination between states. Discrimination continued to be a contentious issue in debate with little consensus about what the nature of the distinction that should be made between being members of the federation, the status of citizenship and franchise. As argued, for example by Josiah Synon in the 1898 debate, because women were able to vote in South Australia, it would be wrong to say that they were not eligible for Australian citizenship (cited by Rubenstein 1997, 391).

Although agreement was able to be reached with respect to defining ‘subject of the Queen’, the fact that Chinese people living in Hong Kong would be able to claim

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 164

Commonwealth citizenship was seen as highly challenging. Despite a few dissenters, there was considerable support for the view that there should be an ability to exclude those members of the Commonwealth who were not ‘the British type’, meaning specifically the Chinese (Rubenstein 2002, 306-308). Regulation of who would be allowed to migrate and in particular the ability to discriminate based on race and colour was seen as being an essential power for the Commonwealth and contributed to the decision not to address directly the term of citizen within the Constitution. H.B. Higgins of Victoria summed up a prevailing view in saying that the power to determine citizenship was ‘a distinct subject and we should not mix up the subject of discrimination with citizenship of the Commonwealth” (Australasian Federal Convention Record of the Delegates Commonwealth 1898, 1801).

The consequence of the decision not to define who is a citizen, or what entitlements accrue to that status, resulted in the deployment of the rights and entitlements of citizenship within a number of pieces of legislation and tools of administration. The rationale underpinning this decision effectively provided the power (and tacit support) for continued discrimination in the application of citizen entitlements and duties, as well as the definition of who should be deserving of this status. It is this dispersion of legislative provisions, built on a foundation in which discrimination against specific members of the Australian community is possible that enables people who are homeless to experience fewer rights as citizens than others. Accordingly, although the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 provided the first legislative use of the term citizen, it is essential to examine the preceding legislation which allocated franchise rights and duties normally attributed to the status of citizen.

Franchise The right to participate in political processes, to be an elector, is embedded in the conception of membership in the Australian community, and an entitlement of citizenship. Within the Australian context, voting is both an entitlement and civic duty. Denial of franchise is a denial of the constitutional commitment to the selection of the government by the people. It is for this reason that the rules and regulations which shape access to and determine the administration of the electoral processes form a foundational part of the political framework.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 165

The right to participate in the political process through voting is set by legislation, and the mechanisms which dictate processes for exercising that right are set in regulation and administrative practices. The first national elections for Parliament in Australia, 1901, were undertaken under the electoral laws of each of the states. The passage just a year later of the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 and the Commonwealth Electoral Act, 1902, enabled the 1903 elections to be conducted (for the first time) under the banner of national regulation. Although this early legislation did not define or employ the term ‘citizen’ consistent with the Constitutional precedence, it set what can only be seen as conditions associated with citizenship by defining who is and is not able to participate in the electoral process.

The significance of franchise lies, however, beyond the ability to vote and participate in political processes. It also acts as a hurdle which must be cleared to access other entitlements or opportunities. Yet, requisite proofs including residential requirements form part of the minimum criteria and without which the individual is effectively disqualified. This includes individuals who within the terms of law should not be excluded from voting. This then creates a barrier to the exercise of (compulsory) participation, as well as access to other entitlements for which being on the electoral roll has been (and is) a requirement as a demonstration of citizenship.

In the 1891 constitutional convention, the principles for franchise were subject to considerable debate. The draft provision did not prohibit plural voting nor provide the Commonwealth with any powers to determine the nature of franchise. Again at the 1898- 99 conventions, the subject of franchise was raised. Two proposals were put forward, both of which ultimately failed. The South Australian delegate, Dr Cockburn proposed a one man one vote principle with no requirement for property ownership. In contrast Edmund Barton suggested that the power be given to the Commonwealth to determine franchise. Each was defeated on the basis of an incursion into state rights (Brooks 1993, 210). The South Australian delegates argued that full franchise should be accorded, seeking to ensure that women’s right to vote which existed in that State was protected. Although the ultimate provision represented a compromise, it effectively over-rode the property requirements of Queensland and Western Australia by virtue of the one man one vote provision. It also opened the door for national legislation on franchise in the future by allocating to the Commonwealth Government the power to regulate with respect to aliens and immigration.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 166

In debating the question of franchise, there was considerable disagreement about who had the appropriate fitness to be allowed to vote. The fitness of women, Aboriginals, migrants of colour, those of ‘unsound mind’, offenders and the institutionalised poor were all subjects of controversy (Norberry and Williams, 2002, 9). Of particular import were the debates around disenfranchisement of the poor and criminal offenders.

In April 1902, the Barton Government proposed to amend the Franchise bill which would effectively remove the voting rights of any person who was living in a charitable institution and reliant on such relief (Brooks 1993, 218). The rationale for this proposal was based on an assertion that people living in public charitable institutions would be so “withdrawn absolutely from contact with ordinary life and public affairs [and] should not be in a position to exercise full political rights” (Norberry 2002, 39.) . The amendment was rejected, despite garnering some support, not because it was discriminatory against the poor, but rather because it had no precedence of exclusion in state electoral arrangements (Norberry and Williams 2002, 24).

The enactment of the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 and Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902 then set the essential qualifications to vote, and the grounds for exclusion. The Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 articulated such qualifications as including:

Subject to the disqualifications hereafter set out, all persons not under twenty-one years of age whether male or female married or unmarried—

a) Who have lived in Australia for six months continuously, and b) Who are natural born or naturalized subjects of the King, and c) Whose names are on the Electoral Roll for any Electoral Division, shall be entitled to vote at the election of Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

No person who is of unsound mind and no person attainted of treason, or who has been convicted and is under sentence or subject to be sentenced for any offence punishable under the law of any part of the King’s dominions by imprisonment for one year or longer, shall be entitled to vote at any election of Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 167

No aboriginal native of Australia Asia Africa or the Islands of the Pacific except New Zealand shall be entitled to have his name placed on an Electoral Roll unless so entitled under section forty-one of the Constitution. 15

As was evident in the constitutional debates, the inclusion of explicit discrimination against groups of people and disenfranchisement were an inherent component of this founding piece of legislation.

It was the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and as amended, which provided the nuts and bolts for the administration of voting within Australia. Although a series of amendments have occurred to enable a more universal voting system, as well as to introduce greater regulation of voting arrangements, the changes did not remove the regulatory barriers to participation by people who are homeless (Norberry and Williams, 2002; Joint Standing Committee, 2003).

The first major review of the 1918 Act was undertaken in 1983 by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. The Committee found that there were practical difficulties for enrolment by people whose work involved frequent relocations, such as itinerant workers. Accordingly the Committee recommended the modifications which were subsequently found in the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act 1983. These changes created the capacity for enrolment as an itinerant voter where the individual is temporary living away from their ‘real place of living’ and to which they have an intention to return. Although people who were homeless were not excluded from this category of enrolment, neither was it entirely useful given that they did not have a ‘real place of living’ to which to return.

In reviewing the 2001 submissions to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, a number of respondents to the Committee argued that attention should be given to the disenfranchisement of people who are homeless as a consequence of the provisions of the Act and its regulations. Ultimately, the Committee recommended that the itinerant elector provisions be amended to make clear the inclusion of people who are homeless. Further, it recommended that the Australian Electoral Commission simplify the application form to ensure its applicability to those who are experiencing homelessness. The Australian Electoral Commission was also charged with undertaking a more proactive approach to

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 168 community education and promotion of this entitlement through relevant agencies as well as the general public (Joint Select Committee Report 2003, 17).

Again in reviewing the 2004 federal election, the Joint Select Committee was asked to consider the barriers to participation by people who are homeless. Submissions to the Committee yet again highlighted the failure to make explicit within the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 the application of the Itinerant provisions for people who are homeless. In addition it was argued that proposed amendments to the Act would exacerbate the disenfranchisement of those experiencing homelessness (Lynch and Tsorbaris, 2004). In addition to the proposed changes to administrative arrangements, the amendments sought to further limit the voting rights of people who had committed any legal offense. The implications of these amendments, as discussed below, had the potential to further disenfranchise people who are homeless.

Identification The proposed (and subsequently legislated) proof of identity requirements demand three means of proof, that is a driver’s licence, written references by prescribed persons, or two references by people who have known the applicant for more than one month and is an enrolled Ordinary Elector. Collectively, and individually, each of these requirements is not easily met by people who are homeless. It was considered unlikely that many homeless people would have a driver’s license or surrogate forms of identification. It was also argued that there would be a reticence amongst many homeless people to approach the prescribed persons such as police, lawyers or justices of the peace for verification purposes, particularly when the individual may have had a negative experience with the legal system. Obtaining two people who are enrolled as Ordinary Electors and who have known the person for the specified period was also seen as presenting a significant hurdle for many people who have been homeless. The impact then of these administrative arrangements is to effectively act as a disincentive if not actual obstacle to enrolment.

Period of The itinerant provisions do not apply to anyone who has a fixed place of residency for more than one month. This is creates a significant barrier to enrolment given that a number of supported accommodation services and refuges have a 6 or 13 week period. However, this is not taken into account within the Act or its regulation. Whether accommodated in a

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 169 refuge or other insecure accommodation such as a boarding house or hostel, after one month the individual is no longer be eligible as an itinerant voter, despite the insecurity of these arrangements. In the absence of any permanent address, anyone who is homeless is unable to enroll as an ordinary elector.

Conditions of Enrolment The amendment of the Act which provides for closure of the electoral roll on the day in which a writ of election is issued again disadvantages those who are homeless. Of particular risk is that previous permanent addresses will have lapsed and a person is then removed from the roll. Equally, it is likely that in the process of getting through the essentials of survival that a person who is homeless may not be aware of the issue of a writ or even be aware that an election is likely to be called.

Following the 2007 Federal Election, the terms of reference for the Inquiry by the Senate Committee did not overtly incorporate responsibility for review of the implementation of recommendations made in previous post election enquiries with respect to enabling the participation of people who are homeless in the electoral process. Nonetheless, the Public Interest Law Clearing House in placing a submission to the Inquiry identified significant barriers that remain. One area of particular note was the lack of action on recommendations previously issued by the Committee of Inquiry (Public Interest Law Clearing House, 2008). In making its submission, the Public Interest Law Clearing House highlighted that the Australian Electoral Commission had failed in its obligation to provide user friendly materials to enable enrolling as a ‘no fixed address’ voter. Similarly the Australian Electoral Commission had not adequately implemented an action plan to raise awareness of the right to vote, nor provided any facility to assist enrolment by people who are homeless. The Public Interest Law Clearing House also criticized the failure to make it explicit within the Electoral Act that the provision for itinerant voters applies in the same way to people who are homeless.

The issue of information and education dissemination by the Australian Electoral Commission needs to be appreciated in the environment in which there are a number of the disincentives to enrolment. The Australian Electoral Commission report cited the Swinburne study of voting preferences of people who were homeless and which found that 64% of respondents had indicated that they would like to vote but had not done so being unaware of how to enroll as well as fearing they would receive a fine for a failure to vote

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 170

(AEC 2005, 9). Similarly, the PILCH consultation with homeless people in March 2005 found people reported these same barriers to participation as well as a belief that they were ineligible to vote and concern about the consequences of having their name on an electoral roll. 16 Although the Australian Electoral Commission largely discounted the argument of structural barriers to participation, and preferred to emphasize what they termed ‘social’ issues, it was clear that lack of participation in the political process was not an indication of any wish not to vote.

The cumulative impact then of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the associated regulations and administrative arrangements have been to negatively impact on the rights and ability of people who are homeless to exercise the entitlement to participate in the political process.

Denial of the Vote for Offenders The right to vote for offenders has also been a contentious issue. Since the 1902 Commonwealth Franchise Act, any person convicted of an offense which involves serving a sentence that requires imprisonment for one year or longer was deprived of the right to vote. In 1983 the Commonwealth Electoral Act was amended and until 1995 the disallowance from voting applied to prisoners serving sentences for five years or more. The Act was amended again and from 2004 – 2006 specifying that any person servicing a sentence of three years was unable to vote in a federal election. In disenfranchising offenders by the removal of the right to vote, it is evident that such exclusions constituted a further punishment in addition to that which had been set by the courts for the relevant offence.

Arguably, the exclusion of persons convicted of an offense has been seen as a reflection of a fundamental judgment about merit. Just as the framers of the Constitution and the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 saw justification in the exclusion of other groups of peoples not felt to have merit (e.g. Indigenous people) so such rationale was applied to offenders. In its report on the 1996 Federal Election, the Senate Joint Standing Committee argued that disenfranchisement of prisoners was grounded in a balance of retribution and deterrence, arguing that the denial of the right to vote in line with loss of freedom was an

16 This included people who had experienced domestic violence for example .

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 171 appropriate response to anyone offending against Commonwealth or State law (Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee Report 1998).

This was articulated by Senator Minchin in the Second Reading speech for the bill to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act to deny all offenders who have been incarcerated the right to vote:

[T]he right to vote is one of the privileges of living in a democracy. if you have committed an offence against society so serious that you are actually incarcerated in a prison cell for a period of time then you entirely lose your rights, privileges and freedom as a citizen for the period of the imprisonment ... it is quite an extraordinary anomaly that despite all that a prisoner actually retains the right to vote so a prisoner's vote remains worth as much as the most law abiding of all our citizens (Hill 2000, 204).

Orr described this aptly in terms of degradation in saying, “the deprival of fundamental rights is a symbolic form of punishment that marks the prisoner as someone with degraded honour” (Orr 1998, 69).

Nonetheless, in 2006 the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Act was amended to specify that all persons serving a full time sentence in detention would be denied the right to vote. This action was subject to an appeal by Vicki Roach who contended that the ban on voting rights within the Act was invalid. In a landmark High Court decision, in the case of Roach v. the Australian Electoral Commission (2007 HC 43) it was found by majority decision that this blanket disenfranchisement was inconsistent with the intention of the right of electoral participation. Despite the legislative power of the Commonwealth to make laws with respect to the eligibility of electors, the High Court found that this needs to be mitigated by the Constitutional commitment to universal adult suffrage. In recognising that imprisonment is the harshest of punishments for offenders, the High Court also found that people may be subject to custodial sentences for quite varying reasons, and even for just a matter of days. Further, if the exclusion from voting is a reflection of sufficiently serious anti social behaviour, then it is essential to be able to differentiate between the types of offenses and behaviours which have led to the custodial sentence. As a consequence, the lead judgment found that the comprehensive

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 172 loss of elector privilege failed to adequately reflect varying degrees of seriousness of offences. Whilst upholding the Constitutional provision excluding those imprisoned for greater than one year, the High Court found that the comprehensive exclusion was unconstitutional despite any powers to regulate eligibility for voting.

This is of particular import to people who are homeless and who are at greater risk than the general community of imprisonment for minor offences such as failure to pay a fine, a public order offense or simply being unable to raise bail. As a consequence it disenfranchises people who are poor, and the homeless, in comparison to others who may have been guilty of similar or more serious offenses but are able to escape a custodial sentence.

Based on existing legislation, people who are homeless are virtually excluded from their right as citizens to vote. Ineligible to register as an ordinary voter and largely unable to meet the requirements of an itinerant voter, the homeless are unable to register on the elector roll neither prior to a writ being issued nor after. Unable to exercise this duty, or take advantage of this right, the constitutional intention that the government be selected by the people is not realized. Further the administrative rules and regulations continue to perpetuate this discrimination.

Origins of Privacy Legislation – Protection of Personal Information or Facilitating Commerce Contemporary debate about and concern with the protection of personal information has moved to the forefront of public awareness only within the last few decades. It is noteworthy however that U.S. Supreme Court Justices Warren and Brandeis warned of the need to recognised the right to and protection of individual privacy in the late nineteenth century (Brandeis and Warren, 1890). Speaking specifically to protections of privacy from intrusion by the public media, this century old warning raised the need for the law to provide clarity of purpose in regulating the dissemination of personal information without the consent of the individual and with a specific warning against the interventions of business.

It was not until some 50 years later that the Universal Declaration on Human Rights articulated a specific protection against unfettered intrusion into individual privacy. Article

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 173

12 states that “ No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks ” (UDHR, 1948).

Again, although not a high profile issue in Australia, the 1960’s saw the emergence of international interest in the way personal information was collected, stored and potentially accessed in light of the growing use of new technologies such as photocopying and microfilm. Such concern was articulated by Sir Zelman Cowen in his 1969 Boyer Lectures during which he observed that, “A man without privacy is a man without dignity; the fear that Big Brother is watching and listening threatens the freedom of the individual no less than the prison bars” (Cowen 1969,9-10).

In Australia, concern about technology such as listening and recording devices led to the adoption of legislation in various forms throughout the 1970’s. Although each state government enacted legislation related to regulation of the use of technologies for collection of information, the Commonwealth Government was largely silent. However the Fraser Government commissioned the Australian Legal Reform Commission (ALRC) to investigate issues of privacy. The Australian Legal Reform Commission in fact did not report until some five years later by which time the recently elected Hawke Government had been ensconced. The economy and other agendas were more pressing for the Government, and concern about protection of personal privacy and the intrusion of technology was temporarily disbanded.

Sweden was the first county to adopt national legislation related to data collection, as early as 1973, followed by the United States in 1974 and European nations sequentially through the decade (Clarke, 2002). Member nations of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development developed privacy protection legislation at differential rates and by the end of the 1970’s Austria, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Luxemburg and Norway had also adopted relevant national legislation. Other member countries had legislation in draft form. Such legislation was largely designed to prevent unlawful storage of personal information, particularly storage of inaccurate personal data, the unauthorised disclosure or abuse of such information.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 174

Nonetheless, there was a common view that the lack of consistency across different national legislation presented a risk to international information transfer essential to the business sector, such as banking and insurance. Accordingly, the OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data were developed under the chairmanship of M.D. Kirby, then Chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission and was adopted in 1980. In presenting the Guidelines, the OECD noted that their primary purpose was to " ... advance the free flow of information between Member countries and to avoid the creation of unjustified obstacles to the development of economic and social relations among Member countries " (OECD, 2002). As such, the Guidelines were conceived more as a facilitator of business transaction than as a protection for the individual.

Importantly, the Guidelines provided that member countries (which included Australia) should adopt their individual legal, administration or institutional protections with respect to personal information, encouraging self regulation, facilitating the exercise of individual rights, and providing adequate remedies for failure to comply with the Guideline’s principles. Given that there is no constitutional reference to privacy or a Commonwealth power in this regard, the development of the Guidelines and OECD implementation strategy enabled (and necessitated that) the Commonwealth take action based on its powers with respect to international matters as well as corporation powers (Section 51 of the Constitution).

Profiling the Australian Environment 1985 -1989 The use of data surveillance, that is, using information technology as means of control by the public and private sectors, has grown exponentially with the development and increasing sophistication of computer technology. The use of the internet by Government and business has made the protection of information, and specifically identifiable private information, the epicentre of considerable public debate in Australia in the 1980’s. The development of such technologies pushed the boundaries for protection of private information beyond that of the print media which concerned Warren and Brandeis, or the narrow scope of regulations of the 1970’s. The ability to collect and store massive amounts of information by the public and private sector collectively significantly broadened the debate on what should or is private and that which is not.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 175

Although the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Guidelines were nominally accepted by the Australian Government in 1984, there was no substantive legislation or regulatory instrument for enforcement. Just two years later the Hawke Government drafted a Privacy Bill which was interwoven with the draft Australia Card Bill and presented to Parliament in 1986. It was the Australia Card Bill, not the Privacy Bill, which generated heated argument. The Government argued that the Australia Card was intended to streamline Government administrative systems. Subsequently, the Government produced a promotional brochure which indicated that the intention was to more effectively identify and address cases of tax cheats, welfare fraud and illegal immigration problems (Clarke 1987). In essence, the Bill provided for a central register containing information about all members of the population and assigning an individual unique identification number. The bill also provided for the production of an identification card, to be issued by the Health Commission, and which would need to be produced to access government services. Furthermore, the proposed legislation provided for sanctions which would be applied to anyone who refused to obtain a card or to comply with the conditions of use. In addition all agencies using the system would be required to transfer information about personal details to each other.

In describing the dynamics which accompanied the introduction of the proposed Australia Card legislation, Simon Davies (1996) noted that although opposition was slow to emerge, it was ultimately characterised by anti-card advocates from all political spectrums, from individuals to big business. There was a strongly shared view that the proposal was neither mandated by nor acceptable to the Australian population. It was argued that the Australia Card, as presented, represented a level of power and intrusion over personal information which was simply not to be trusted. In tracing the history of the privacy legislation Clarke observed that despite the extensive and highly charged debate about the Australia Card, the Privacy Bill attracted little discussion which in reality lasted little over an hour (Clarke 2000).

Having rejected the bill twice, the Australia Card Bill became a trigger for a double dissolution. However, given the high level of public outcry, the Government abandoned the Australia Card and the Privacy Bill alone was left on the table.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 176

In resubmitting a Privacy Bill in 1988, the Government drew greatly on the 1986 version, but with an explicit reference to the OECD Guidelines. In speaking to the Second Reading of the Bill on 1 st November 1988, the Attorney General, Lionel Bowen (Commonwealth of Australia, House of Representatives 1988, 2117), noted that:

Internationally, there is an increasing trend for governments to enact privacy legislation. The Council of Europe's Convention on Data Protection and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) guidelines on personal privacy have been developed to encourage countries to take privacy protection measures. Australia has formally signified its intention to adhere to the guidelines and in so doing to take into account in any privacy legislation the principles set out in those guidelines. Most European countries, the United States of America and Canada have enacted privacy protection legislation. It is now an appropriate time for Australia to enact such legislation.

The Commonwealth, in proposing this legislation, was relying upon its constitutional powers associated with Section 51(1) of the Constitution which enables the Commonwealth to make laws relevant to trade and commerce, and in particular international trade. However, because the Privacy Act was applicable only to the Government and its various agencies, it was not wholly compliant with the OECD Guidelines and a further amendment was made in 1989 to include the credit sector, a commercial sector of prime import to the international trading community. Other private sector businesses which collect, store and disseminate personal information were not immediately accountable to the Act or its principles.

The Rise of Tenancy Database Industry "Catching them before they catch you" (TICA) 17

The decision to limit the application of the Privacy Act and to disallow landlords, real estate agents and property managers to access credit services created the ideal environment for the establishment of a new service industry – the residential tenancy database providers. Residential Tenancy Databases (RTDs) are electronic databases that are operated on commercial basis collecting and storing information about tenants from real estate agents

17 The TICA website describes their service as “The TICA DEFAULT TENANCY CONTROL SYSTEM is the largest tenant database operating throughout Australia and New Zealand.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 177 and property managers. This information, presented in the form of a tenant history, is then able to be accessed by real estate agencies and property managers regulating access to rental properties.

Although there was one Rental Tenancy Database (RTD) provider in 1987, by 2001 there were seven such businesses operating in Australia, most offering a national service. Historically the tenancy database services were largely unregulated, enabling agents and managers to enter information about prior tenants with no systems of checks or accountability for such information. Once the information had been entered into the database, other agents or managers are able to access such comments, with such information having the power to effectively compromise the ability of any person listed on the database to access any rental housing other than the least desirable. Those operating in the rental housing sector, and as supported by Government through various inquiries, asserted that the RTD is a legitimate risk management tool for the sector. In contrast, advocates in the legal, housing and research sector argued that the RTD is an effective tool for discrimination and had demonstrably contributed to homelessness for those listed on such databases. It is for this reason that the term ‘blacklist’ became commonly synonymous with the RTD and the label of ‘bad tenant’ ascribed to anyone so listed.

The regulatory environment has been somewhat disjointed. Under Australia’s distribution of powers between the Commonwealth and the States, regulation of the real estate and rental housing sector has been understood as a state responsibility. Accordingly, state regulation from its inception has, as a legacy of the colonies’ British origins, been heavily skewed towards protection of property rights (Burke 1999, 7). At the national level, the federal Trade Practices Act (Cth) 1974 enables the Commonwealth Government to take action against businesses which contravene the provisions of national legislation. Various State and Territory legislation complement the Trade Practices Act. Prior to 2001, there was virtually no explicit regulation of the RTD sector.

The trigger for Government interest in, and investigation of, RTDs was the highly public campaign by housing and tenant advocacy groups, an increasing number of academic studies and damning media reports. The fundamental weaknesses in the operation of the RTDs lay in the inaccuracy of information collected, stored and disseminated as well as the failure to inform tenants of the listing (Johnson 1999, 51). The discretionary basis and ad

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 178 hoc nature of reporting as well as the lack of appropriate checks meant that personal information being recorded was vulnerable to both deliberate and inadvertent inaccuracies and yet such misinformation was rarely amended even when errors were identified. The 1997 Seelig study “ Privacy Rental Market – The Growth of Tenant Databases in Australia”, and Johnson’s 1999 report “ Cash and Cowboys – Barriers for entry to private rental by disadvantaged consumers ” offered a collective warning of the need to address the way in which RTDs operated and the impact on individuals.

The problems and issues associated with the operation of RTD’s were well known to the Commonwealth Government. The 1997 Senate Inquiry into Housing Assistance was presented with strong arguments about and evidence of the impact of such services on housing access. Speaking specifically to the issue, the NSW Tenants Union highlighted the lack of quality control on information that branded individuals as ‘bad tenants’. Accordingly, the Committee recommended the extension of Privacy legislation to include such organisations and highlighted the need for more stringent regulation more generally (Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee Inquiry into Housing Assistance, 1997).

Again, the 1998 report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee titled Privacy and the Private Sector clearly identified RTDs as a significant privacy concern and reiterated the need for appropriate regulation. In reporting its conclusions, the Senate Committee (1999) noted that,

On the basis of this evidence, however, the Committee agrees that one of the central issues with regard to tenant databases is the lack of privacy protection. Although an individual's right to privacy is not absolute, privacy laws must provide protection for access to an individual’s personal information data. A balance needs to be struck between the commercial rights of property owners and the personal rights of individuals. What is clear is that the current lack of privacy protection continues to place a significant group in a difficult and vulnerable position.

In the same year the Federal Privacy Commissioner, in conjunction with the Federal Attorney General, released a set of guidelines, Fair Handling of Personal Information . The guidelines were voluntary in nature and intended to advise the private sector which was not covered by the then current national legislation . While providing direction on

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 179 operational indicators of good practice, the Commissioner noted that personal information is not able to be absolutely private, but rather that protections need to take into account the claims of the business sector and other organisations (Office of the Privacy Commissioner, 1999). As the end of 1999 approached, the Federal Government announced its intention to extend the principles of the 1988 legislation to the private sector based upon the principles set out by the Privacy Commissioner.

By the end of the decade, there was mounting evidence of the significant consequences resulting from the lack of regulation of RTD providers. This was summed up by Anthony Albanese, MP, who was cited in the Melbourne Age in December 1999 as saying,

The principle problem with these databases is that lack of regulation enables database operators to list tenants, with no proof of any wrong doing by the tenants. Alternatively, the tenant may be listed as a ‘bad tenant’ in accordance with the landlord’s own view of inappropriate behaviour rather than because a tenant has been found to have breached agreed guidelines. Moreover, once tenants find themselves on such databases they often face severe difficulties in having their names removed, irrespective of whether or not they are responsible (Koutsoukis 1999, 4).

Between 2000 and 2008, the national press continued to report cases in which the flaws in the operation of the RTDs had generated unjustified discrimination and become a cause of homelessness for unfair victims of the database misinformation. Reporting in the Australian (September 21, 2001, 27) under the headline “Listing left family homeless”, the plight of a NSW family inaccurately listed on the TICA database rendered them unable to access any housing until they were able to get assistance from a real estate agency that did not subscribe to the database. Again in May of that year, Meade reported on a young Queensland woman unable to access housing when another person of the same name had been listed on a tenancy database. Similar articles continued to appear in the Courier Mail 18 , the Sydney Morning Herald 19 , and the Melbourne Age 20 as well as the Australian .21

18 Heffernan, R “tenants pay for black list queries, Courier Mail April 28, 2000 p.47 19 “Secret Real Estate Business”, Sydney Morning Herald November 13, 2002 p.14; AL. Pyor “Accuracy of tenancy blacklists question” November 26, 2003 p.5 20 Cullen, D “Shame Files – ISSUES”, February 10, 2003, p.p.14 21 Meade, K “difficult renters stuck in bad books” May 25, 2000 p.9; Dearne, K “Estate agent blacklists not covered by law” September 2, 2003 p.34

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 180

In April 2000, the Privacy Amendment Bill was introduced into the Parliament, extending the legislation, in part, to the private sector. In speaking to the Second Reading of the Bill, Anthony Albanese, MP, noted that the bill was inadequate in its capacity to effectively regulate the least desirable aspects of the RTD services. In responding to this criticism, the Attorney General was dismissive, suggesting the bill indeed covered the tenant databases and that there was insufficient justification for specifying this service sector from the small business exemption provisions (House of Representatives Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 Parliamentary Debate 8 th -9th November 2000). The Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Act 2000 (Cth) was passed in December of 2000, and became enforceable some 12 months later.

Despite the extension of the Privacy Act, tenancy databases continued to present a practical barrier housing access for significant number of vulnerable rental applicants. Inaccurate information, a failure to correct or remove information from a database, failure to inform tenants of listings, issuing of threatening letters under the RTD letterhead were consequences of the virtual immunity of the RTD providers from effective regulation. The fact of having been listed, whether accurate or not, remained a basis for rejection from the private rental market (MCCA, 2003; Seelig, 1997, 2003; Special Government Backbench Committee Report 2002 ). In spite of the adoption of state based regulations, such contraventions of the Privacy Act were as much the responsibility of those who lodge information with such RTDs as the operators themselves.

In 2001, the Queensland Tenancy Databases Action Group carried out a survey of people residing in Supported Assistance Accommodation Program (SAAP). The Group reported in January 2002 that nearly half of respondents indicated that they had been listed on a tenancy database. Some three quarters of the respondents asserted that this was the primary cause of their homelessness (Queensland Special Government Backbench Committee, 2002, 49).

In December 2003 a complaint was lodged with the Commonwealth Office of the Privacy Commissioner based on breaches by a RTD of the Privacy Act. The complaint cited a range of matters including the quality, accuracy and timeliness of information, the lack of quality checks, the lack of effective dispute resolution processes and failure to inform those who

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 181 have been listed. The Commissioner found in favour of the complainants and in finding that breaches had occurred, recommended actions that were needed to rectify the system (Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Complaint Determination No. 2 of 2004, April 2004). Some twelve months later the Commissioner completed her review of the provisions of the Privacy Act and as a consequence recommended that all RTDs be regulated under the Act accompanied by a binding code of practice (Office of the Privacy Commissioner, 2005, 9- 10).

It is important to appreciate the growth and embrace of the RTD services within the context of national housing policy. Successive Australian Governments placed an increasing focus on the delivery of low cost rental housing by the private market (as compared to public or community housing). At the same time, the supply of low cost housing declined in an increasingly competitive marketplace (Adkins and Short 2002; Seelig, 2003). With the lower end of the private rental market as the Government’s preferred destination for the poor, the impact of the RTD became more than a case of regulation of information. Arguably although the RTDs offer(ed) some protection for property managers (and each Commonwealth Government report suggests acceptance of the validity of the RTDs as a risk management tool for the private sector), the operation of these services have had substantial housing implications for those who have had (or are inaccurately reported to have) previous tenancy problems and for whom exclusion from the private market has meant homelessness.

Given the recurring complaints, the findings of the Privacy Commissioner and the findings of individual state investigations, the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs and Standing Committee of Attorneys General agreed to form a joint working party to investigate and report on the role and operation of tenancy databases, and to consider the options for a nationally consistent approach. Created in 2003, the Working Party produced its final report in March 2005. The Working Party acknowledged that the landlord/tenant relationship is a state matter for regulation. It also however recognised that the Commonwealth corporations’ power and the ability to apply powers under the Trade Practices Act (TPA) provide a basis for regulatory action, beyond that provided under the Privacy Act 1988.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 182

In considering the application of the Privacy Act, the Working Party accepted that there was a potential ‘escape clause’ which the RTDs were able to employ; that was the provision associated with an individual providing consent for information to be collected or disseminated. In the circumstances that an applicant for a tenancy is required to provide information, including consent to the collection of disclosure of such information, the real estate agent, property manager or RTD may argue that the requirement of the Act is met. However, because the failure to provide the information or to give consent would result in an automatic exclusion by the real estate or property manager, it is more than reasonable to question whether this actually constitutes ‘willing consent’. It could equally be argued as falling within the scope of the Trade Practices Act as ‘unconscionable conduct’ in which the agent, being in the superior position, is able to effectively behave in an oppressive manner.

Ultimately, the Working Party found that although uniform regulation across the States and Territories was desirable, it acknowledged that regulation of the RTD services also required Commonwealth action, including prescribing RTDs as organisations for the purposes of the Privacy Act. Additional recommendations were made with respect to the conditions of listings, access to and correction of listings, and disputes. However, responsibility for enforcement of such requirements was not spelled out in the Report. In October 2006 the Commonwealth Attorney General announced the Government’s intention to extend the National Privacy Act regulation to include all residential tenancy database providers. Some 10 months later, in August 2007, the Government was able to confirm that such regulation had been enacted.

The extent to which the inclusion of the RTDs within the purview of the Privacy Act has substantially redressed the range of disadvantages associated with the operation of the databases is less clear. Although uniform legislation across the States and Territories has not been achieved, changes have been made to more closely regulate the scope of listings by real estate and property managers. For example, applicants must be provided with relevant advice about the collection and dissemination of their personal information prior to an applicant as part of the application process. Additional statutory protections are designed to limit the grounds for which a person can be entered onto a database and require that an individual be advised if they are to be listed on an RTD. Actions that can be taken to remove or correct inaccurate listings are also identified. Such legislation does not,

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 183 however, limit the length of time for which a person may remain on a database list – which may be from 3-5 years in some cases, and in other circumstances without any specific end. With this relatively unfettered operation of the RTDs, any unexpected crisis that may have led to a person defaulting in a tenancy can ultimately lead to being blacklisted years later. Further, there are no legal mechanisms for requiring a RTD to remove a listing which was initially consistent with the accepted criteria, but after which years and circumstances have changed.

Current legislative requirements do not prohibit a real estate agent or property manager from requiring an applicant to sign a consent form as a condition of application, whether or not the implications are fully understood. This makes the consent of limited meaning. In operational terms, failure to consent means automatic failure to be considered for housing.

Although there are established dispute mechanisms, whether through the State or Territory tribunal mechanisms, the Privacy Commissioner or even the Trade Practices Act, engaging in such processes is largely a moot option for those at risk or who are immediately homeless. Further, given the time it may take for such cases to be heard and determined, it is unlikely to have any immediate impact on the capacity of a listed person to counter the impact of inclusion on a ‘bad tenant’ database.

Despite the legislative reforms, and the application of the National Privacy Act, the impact of such technologies has not substantially altered the risks associated with the operation of the RTDs. Recognising this, the Commonwealth Government’s White Paper, The Road Home – A National Approach to Homelessness (2008), sets out a commitment to regulatory reform by 2010 in which to achieve uniform regulations across all states and territories. However in making this commitment, the White Paper notes,

Many people have found themselves listed on a residential tenancy database based on information that is inaccurate or outdated. Being listed on a database can exclude a person from the private rental market and make them homeless. This is especially the case in regional Australia where the number of homes for rent is limited and there may be little or no competition between real estate agents. Nationally consistent regulation of tenancy databases will remove barriers for tenants in the private rental market who may otherwise be at risk of homelessness. It will also

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 184

provide certainty and clarity to tenants – especially those who have lived in more than one jurisdiction or who plan to relocate to another – as well as to landlords, agents and property managers (Homelessness Taskforce, 2008, 26-27) .

This does not auger well for the more challenging issues of consent, of duration, of dispute or removal from a RTD. Further, it suggests an ongoing reliance on state/territory regulation of the residential rental market, rather than the alternative option based on the National Government’s corporate regulatory powers. Given that the state/territory legislation is focused on the landlord/tenant relationship, it has relatively limited scope to impact on the RTDs except on a case by case basis. Again, given the current environment, the relative inequity of power between the applicant and the agent, the reliance solely on complaints is unlikely to have a significant impact on the operation of the RTDs. More significantly, there is no identifiable vehicle for responding to the fundamental impact of being listed on an RTD which can, and has, rendered people homeless.

Accordingly, past, current and proposed national legislation, whether in the context of residential tenancy regulation, consumer protection or privacy of personal information, has made little impact on the way in the RTD providers operate and fails to protect the most vulnerable and reliant on the private rental market. Collectively, there is an implication that a ‘bad tenant’, that is the tenant who for whatever reason defaults or offends against a tenancy agreement (irrespective of the circumstances or time in which it has occurred), is deserving of the discrimination, and indeed exclusion, from the rental market in the name of private sector risk management.

Homelessness and Second Class Citizenship In June 2009, the Minister for Housing announced an enquiry by the House Standing Committee on Family, Community, Housing and Youth into the content of what is termed homelessness legislation. In setting the terms of reference for this enquiry, the Committee has been charged with examining the principles upon which homelessness services should operate as well as legislation relevant to social inclusion and rights. It also specifies examination of “The effectiveness of existing legislation and regulations governing homelessness services in Australia and overseas” and the applicability of legislation and ‘regulatory models used in other community service systems’ (Terms of Reference, 2009). It is this terminology itself, that of governing and regulatory models which continues the

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 185 logic of governmentality. In practical terms, the inquiry leaves considerable gaps with respect to the failure to consider how the broader legislative framework acts in a less direct but nonetheless has a negative impact on people who are homeless. By specifying the focus on homeless services, it is ambiguous whether this is taken to include and extends to the impact of legislative and administrative systems directly on the homeless.

The aim of this chapter has been to make transparent the intended and unintended consequences of Australian Government rationalities reflected in the legislative tools and technologies of governing on people who are homeless. Whilst not exhaustive of the full gamut of arenas in which the tools and technologies are relevant, it has opened up a space in which to demonstrate the impacts of two distinct areas of Government activity which directly disadvantage people who are homeless in accessing the rights and entitlements accorded to citizens. Such disadvantage is deliberate, and is a by product of the belief in the justifiability of such discrimination. The following chapter builds on this foundation, drawing out how housing policy and strategies have from conception been intended to deliver similar disadvantage based on a discourse of worthiness.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 186

Chapter 7: The Problematic of Housing

Introduction From a governmentality perspective, it is the dominant political values and rationalities that shape how the Government establishes those matters that lie within the scope of its interests and the nature of action that it will take. This makes it essential to consider how such rationalities have fashioned the Australian Government’s approach to its role in housing (including all actions which impact on the production, accessibility, the need for and affordability of housing). By tracing the Government’s engagement with housing and the rationalities that have shaped such engagement, the tenuous link between national housing policies and homelessness becomes visible.

This analysis reveals that Australian Government housing policy and practice, with roots in its historical English traditions and more recently economic rationalism, have been antithetical to the reduction of homelessness. The discourse associated with housing policy can be seen to be only tangentially related to homelessness. Australia has a long history, including pre-federation, of a commitment to home ownership. With a 40% home ownership rate at the start of the twentieth century, the proportion of home owner occupiers increased to 70% by the 1960’s. (Berry 1999, 106). As a market driven industry, approximately 90% of households have relied on private financing as means to home ownership. However, by the late 1990’s and continuing through the first decade of the twenty first century, a fundamental shift occurred with home ownership becoming increasingly out of reach even for many who would previously entered the home ownership market. Growing demand on the rental market accompanied by rising costs contributed to widening the gap between the marketplace and housing need. The Government’s policy response has remained grounded in a philosophic and economic rationalist belief in the private sector as the vehicle for housing the population. The unravelling of national housing policy and technologies is needed to make visible the schism between the aim of a nation based on home ownership and the needs of those who are not housed at all. Further, it becomes evident that the homeless have until the most recent change in Government been noticeably absent from debate about national housing policy. Acknowledging the rhetoric of the current Rudd Government with respect to homelessness, it can be seen that the substantive rationalities grounded in the private sector which have underpinned historic policy and practice have not changed.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 187

Rationalities and National Housing Policy As noted previously, Rose and Miller (1992) suggested that rationalities can be analysed in terms of their moral dimension, epistemological character 22 and distinctive idiom. Rationalities form the basis upon which a problem is defined and through which power may be applied in its various vectors and forms. Rephrasing this perspective, it can be argued that political, economic and social values are inter-twined in the thinking, discourse and actions of Government. Therefore, by viewing these elements together it is possible to make explicit how successive Australian Governments have understood the appropriate role of Government in the provision of housing for its citizens.

There is some irony in that, irrespective of the fact that successive governments have claimed to be of different political, economic and social persuasions, there has been little substantive difference in the perception of the role of the national government in the provision of housing or housing assistance. Despite periodic re-prioritising of who should be the beneficiary of housing assistance, such realignments have been consistent with the rationalisation of public resources generally, the defining of those beneficiaries deemed to deserve assistance and for what end.

Further, irrespective of the party political branding of the government of the day, there has been an unswerving perception that the provision of housing lies within the ambit of the private sector. Government intervention is necessitated only where there is a demonstrable need to augment, support or otherwise compensate for any limitations arising from the operation of the finance and or building industries. It has been the dominant economic values that have largely dictated when a market failure has occurred that justifies or requires some involvement by Government and the preferred manner of response to such failure.

Accordingly, the raison d’ être for Australian Government intervention can be traced to the prevailing economic objectives, which in turn reflect implicit social values and priorities. The long-standing Australian Government commitment to providing rent assistance to eligible applicants (which has been redefined from time to time) is a classic example. Provision of rent assistance (that is the payment of small amounts of rent-specific financial

22 The ascription of characteristics of the subjects of governing forms the epistemological character of the rationality. This is not limited to that of people or the individual, but equally to broader concepts of economy or wealth.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 188 assistance to eligible recipients) as a technique of Government is grounded in the belief that the private sector is able to provide adequate low cost housing options 23 , access to which is facilitated through the provision of direct rent subsidies for those at the lowest end of the income pyramid. At the same time, the iconic Australian belief in home ownership has been supported by successive Australian Governments. The promotion of private sector investment in housing has been well supported by significant taxation benefits. National housing policy has remained constant in its reliance on the use of financial powers as the vehicle for influencing the provision of housing, with the construction industry and investment sector being the primary beneficiaries.

The social housing sector, which has been primarily funded through a Commonwealth – State funding agreement, including public housing and the not for profit, non-government housing services, has been similarly framed by the financial arrangements offered by the Australian Government. Although there have been a number of incarnations of the social housing sector, it has consistently been perceived as the second string in the housing orchestra, with private ownership remaining the conductor.

As asserted by Foucault, modern governmentality has population as its object, and the exercise of power is based on its authority over individuals and populations. This is well demonstrated by the way in which the Australian Government housing policy has consistently circumscribed populations deemed to be deserving and undeserving of assistance. Importantly, this has moved beyond the criteria of financial means. Government thinking and policy has been expressed through the construction and maintenance of a solid gate which ensures that only the deserving are able to access housing related programs, irrespective of equally limited means. In tracing the changing definition of the population of deserving and undeserving, it can be argued that the key feature is the consistent application of strategies which advantage given populations over others, despite being in parallel circumstances.

As noted previously, the legitimacy of government action and regulation (direct and indirect) is inherently linked to, and enabled by, the workings of the institutions and individuals responsible for the production of knowledge (Rose and Miller, 1992; Graham

23 The closure of boarding houses, lodging houses, urban caravan parks and other cheap housing options (by State Governments) has not been replaced y either by public or private housing options. Rent assistance has little meaning in an environment in which there is no affordable housing to access.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 189 and Neu, 2004; Rose, 1991; Miller and O’Leary, 1987). It is in the critical alliance between the experts and the Government that problems and solutions are identified and explained. There is a feedback relationship between the selection of experts with whom Government will form an alliance and the production of knowledge to support the rationalities of the day. Whether 19 th century philanthropy, early 20 th century welfarism or late 20 th century neo-liberalism, it was the social scientists, demographers and public health practitioners who highlighted the need for action to ensure that the social environment was conducive to ongoing wealth generation. Although those asserting special knowledge bring varying perspectives dependent upon their disciplinary background, the critical criteria is the rationale by which Government selects the expertise they are willing to be advised by and to whom they will listen.

President Dwight D Eisenhower’s warning against the unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex is relatively well known. What is less remembered is the corollary warning in which the exiting President observed:

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity...The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded (Eisenhower 1961, Farewell Address).

To understand how the problem of homelessness or the homeless has been framed by those claiming relevant expertise and alliances it is essential to appreciate the nexus with and influence on Government thinking, housing policy and Government action.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 190

The Rise of Physical Determinism and Governmental Engagement with Housing Although the identification of housing as a problem to which Government needed to respond first occurred in Western Europe, this history strongly influenced thinking in Australia following World War I and the subsequent post depression period in Australia. It is for this reason that this precedence is an appropriate starting point.

Public health emerged as a critical issue for governments in 19 th century Western Europe. The migration of large numbers of people to cities for work in the new factories in an industry driven economy led to overcrowding, poor living conditions and formed an environment in which disease was able to run rampant. The growing impact of the epidemics of influenza, cholera and typhoid threatened the supply of labour and placed the health of the working poor onto the political agenda. By mid century, public health proponents such as Britain’s Edwin Chadwick and John Snow (later to be labelled the ‘father of epidemiology’), championed the notion of physical determinism, arguing that poor ventilation, overcrowding of housing and poor sanitation, rather than moral failure, were responsible for increasing disease and sickness amongst the poor labouring population living in the urban slums. Advocating for improved living conditions, public sanitation, disposal of sewage, quality of water, and clean air, they claimed that improved physical conditions would be conducive to improved moral behaviours among the poor. In concluding his study of the living conditions of the poor, Chadwick asserted that, “the removal of noxious physical circumstances, and the promotion of civic, household and personal cleanliness, are necessary to the improvement of the moral condition of the population; for that sound morality and refinement in manners and health are not long found co-existent with filthy habits amongst any class of the community” (Chadwick Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population and the Means of Improvement , 1842). Chadwick also held that reducing or eliminating the costs of sickness and premature death associated with the lack of sanitation and housing condition would be more than compensated for by enhanced productivity as much as being a humanitarian action (Pugh 1975, 103).

By the end of the 19 th century, British city planners emerged as the new experts, reinforcing the thesis of physical determinism, that is, that a ‘bad physical environment’ (the slum) produced ‘bad people’. It was from this perspective that the Garden City Movement emerged in Britain at the turn of the century. Arguing that the city environment

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 191 was a significant determinant of social behaviour, the science of planning was promulgated as the vehicle for eliminating slums, creating orderly development and reducing the unacceptable behaviours of the slum dwellers. Writing in 1902, Ebenezer Howard, a strong proponent of the garden city approach, defended this model, “the introduction of better forms: than crowded, ill-ventilated, unplanned, unwieldy, unhealthy cities--ulcers on the very face of our beautiful island--are to stand as barriers to the introduction of towns in which modern scientific methods and the aims of social reformers may have the fullest scope in which to express themselves” (Howard 1902, 147) .

Proponents of physical determinism contended that improvement in public health was critical to the reform of undesirable social behaviours and the advancement of economic wellbeing. As a consequence, regulation of the physical environment came to be seen as an important tool for local governments. Such regulation was not an altruistic exercise, but rather a considered technique for protecting the economic and social order. The principles of physical determinism, and its moral correlates, had a significant impact on thinking in Australia and can be evidenced from the first three decades of the twentieth century.

Australian Housing Policy – The Post Federation Approach As in England, the Australian cities experienced mounting public health problems as a consequence of inadequate infrastructure to meet the needs of a rapidly growing population. In the latter part of the nineteenth century, there were a number of enquiries by the States including the Royal Commission into the Sanitary Conditions of Melbourne (1889), the South Australian Sanitary Reform (1849) and the NSW Sewerage and Health Board reports (1875-1876). The outcome of such reviews and reports was the adoption of regulation associated with sanitation and building which were understood to be significant factors in the declining health condition.

The basis for the emerging anti-slum movement was to no small extent aligned to the belief in a relationship between the slum environment and a number of social ills, including low standards of behaviour and vice. However, responsibility for charitable works, through low cost rental housing and general philanthropy, was left primarily to the good will of the middle classes and benevolent societies (Pugh 1975, 8). Barnett, who was to become a strong anti-slum activist in the early twentieth century, encapsulated this view when he wrote,

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 192

The Cause, the saving of the slum baby, inspired the youth of the Methodist Church, enabling them to put their spiritual ideas into actual practice for the benefit of little babies, otherwise condemned to live in a slum environment, of a vicious or immoral nature. The change of environment worked miracles (Barnett 1949, Is it Safe to Adopt a Baby , cited by Howe, 1994, 9).

Between 1900 and 1919, any action taken with respect to housing was left to the states. A Royal Commission was appointed in 1909 in New South Wales, the outcome of which was the enactment of the Housing Act 1912. As a consequence of the Act, Darcy Gardens, a garden city style development intended for public rental housing, was started. However, the project was ultimately left unfinished due to management, cost and construction problems. Concurrently the NSW Government Savings Bank was legislated in 1913 to enable greater access to home loans for moderate and low income families. In 1923, the Co-operative Community Settlement and Credit Act was passed with the expectation that cooperative societies and building societies would be able to provide loans to those on moderate and low incomes to become home owners. However, those most in need, those on low incomes, were unable to afford the cost of such loans and derived no housing benefit. As in New South Wales, the Victorian Government commissioned a Royal Commission on Housing Conditions in 1915 which culminated in new legislation designed to promote the development of low cost housing by local government and through greater access to credit. Despite the efforts by the Victorian and New South Wales Governments to encourage local governments to take on responsibility for addressing the housing problem, they were unsuccessful (Hayward 1996, 8).

The introduction of the War Services Home Act 1919 was the first engagement of the Commonwealth Government in housing. In political and value terms, the aim of the program was to recognise service rather than having any foundation in housing affordability and did not reflect any political commitment to a diversion from the principle belief in home ownership and the provision of housing as a private sector responsibility.

Over the first three decades post-Federation, there was a period of boom and bust in housing development. The Australian building boom at the turn of the century was overturned by the impact of the First World War, and subsequently the Great Depression. For the decade of war and depression, building reached a virtual standstill. It was estimated that there was a shortage of some 120,000 dwellings. Unemployment was rampant,

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 193 housing conditions deteriorated and an increasing number of people were left living in tents, huts and humpies, even within the Australian cities (Berry 1999, 108; Hayward 1996, 7).

With the option between supporting rental or home ownership, the Commonwealth Government intervention mirrored that of the states, focusing on the provision of home loans through State and Commonwealth Banks. Despite such financial assistance, the 30% deposit rates made loans unaffordable for low-income earners who were left to be exploited by unfettered landlords. Although some small efforts were made to reduce the housing shortage by providing finance to support the building of housing estates, housing remained generally unaffordable for low-income workers. The collapse of the NSW Housing Board initiative, Daceyville, which was intended to demonstrate how garden city communities improve health, productivity and promote social norms, was a most notable reflection of the failure of the time (Hayward 1996).

The voice of social reformers began to join those in the town planning movement in arguing for the need for government intervention in addressing the deteriorating housing environment. The Political Reform League of Adelaide, which was characteristic of this movement, included Horace Hoben, who became a leader in housing reform in the 1930’s in South Australia. Oswald Barnett, a member of the Housing Investigation and Slum Abolition Board (HISAB), set up by the Albert Dunstan Country Party Government in 1936, wrote in his submission, "If slum reclamation by and through the state achieves no more than the physical and moral salvation of the children in these areas, it will have more than justified any sacrifice involved" (HISAB, 1937 cited in Howe, 1994).

By the mid 1930’s, it became apparent that subsiding of home ownership was not sufficient to address the housing crisis in the inner cities, and that the promotion of such ownership incurred its own dangers, for both the lending authorities and poor workers. By the end of the depression, more than 10% of people borrowing funds through the State Banks and the Commonwealth Bank were unable to repay loans, there were financial losses to State banks, and ongoing enquires documented worsening conditions in cities. The Victorian Housing Investigation and Slum Abolition Board, 1936, NSW Housing Slums Investigations Committee, 1936, and South Australian Building Act Enquiry Committee, 1937, all highlighted the inability of the private market to provide adequate housing for the working

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 194 poor on low incomes. As a result, state governments faced mounting pressures from social reformers in conjunction with the impact of lending failures on the financial sector. The South Australian Housing Trust, Victorian Housing Commission and Tasmanian Agricultural Bank’s Housing Division, were formed just prior to the start of World War II (NSW Department of Housing, 2003; Vella and Cahir, 1990; Hayward, 1996).

It was this combination of concerns that became the trigger for the formation of the first Commonwealth Housing Commission, which was charged with responsibility for examining and reporting on solutions to the nation’s housing problems. The Commission’s report, delivered in 1944, set out 95 recommendations, focusing on an integrated system of housing provision, planning and community development (Lloyd and Troy, 1981; Haywood, 2002). The Commission reiterated the need to acknowledge the failure of the private market to provide adequate responses for working people on low incomes. It was estimated that there was housing shortage in the order of 300,000 dwellings. It was this failure that underpinned the decision by the Commonwealth Government to consider its role in housing, a matter which had previously had been well outside the scope of its concern other than through the funding of home ownership through the Commonwealth Bank and the War Services Home Act of 1919. Speaking to the Parliament in 1945, the Minister for Reconstruction, John Dedham, confirmed the Government’s thinking in saying, “To our discredit, there has not been to date a full scale attack on our slums” (Dedham 1945, 5383 cited by Berry 1991, 109).

Defining a Role of the Commonwealth in Housing Prior to 1945, the primary role of the Commonwealth Government in housing had been through the provision of low cost loans for home ownership. In 1943, the Commonwealth Housing Commission was appointed, with responsibility for undertaking an assessment of the adequacy of the national housing stock. As a consequence of the findings of the Housing Commission report of 1944 (as noted above), the Chifley Government negotiated with the States and the first Commonwealth State Housing Agreement (CSHA) was reached in 1945. This Agreement formed the framework for Commonwealth funding to the states for development of housing programs (National Housing Strategy, 1992).

Unlike the provision of financial support through home loans, the establishment of a public housing sector under the first CSHA had a demonstrably moral dimension. The

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 195

Commonwealth Housing Commission expressed the view that “every citizen of the Commonwealth is entitled to a good standard house and this should not depend on his economic position or the policy of the particular state in which he resides” (Commission cited by Hayward 1996, 7). Nonetheless, the delivery of universal access to housing was not seen as an obligation of Government, as was the case in the provision of education, for example. Further, the Commission took the view that housing should be affordable to those on low incomes, based on a user-pays arrangement. The CHSA accordingly required that housing be ‘amongst those in need of proper housing accommodation” (Berry 1988, 98), leaving it to individual State Housing Authorities to determine how to interpret this requirement. This was to become a foundation stone for all subsequent housing policy, setting a framework that enabled governments to determine those that should/should not be assisted, whilst positing the primary obligation for housing outside of the Commonwealth Government.

Despite a variety of State interpretations of who should be the beneficiaries of public housing, the critical commonality which has endured into the 21 st century has been the application of discrete criteria for differentiating between the deserving and undeserving of assistance. The Victorian Housing Commission was primarily concerned with provision of housing for families with children on lower incomes. Anyone who became single as a result of the death of a spouse or divorce, had to return their public housing in preference to an intact family (Jones 1972; Vella and Cahir, 1990). In South Australia, maintenance of employment was critical, with tenants threatened with eviction if rent fell into arrears. Tenancy workers were employed to visit tenants’ homes and provide advice on behaviour and good tenancy responsibilities as well as to encourage neatness and healthy conditions. Irrespective of the conditions attributed by the states, there was a consistent commitment to ensuring that the beneficiaries of such housing were of ‘good character’ and behaved in a manner consistent with community expectations; that is self governing individuals.

The importance of self governing as juxtaposed to housing need was reflected not only in the eligibility criteria, but equally to the security of tenure being offered. In the 1954, the South Australian Housing Trust noted in its annual report that a substandard tenant who would be excluded was defined as “one who is below a reasonable level of cleanliness, likely to be a menace to the neighbours or without excuse has avoided financial obligations in the past”. Similarly the New South Wales Housing Commission maintained that tenants

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 196 with “unsatisfactory domestic standards or substandard behaviours” would be excluded; the Western Australian Housing Commission required “reasonable domestic and garden standards and acceptable social behaviour of all its” tenant (Jones, 1972, 62).

This moral dimension to the provision of housing assistance, while developed and administered by the States, reflected an interpretation of the intention of the CSHA with particular regard to the balance between housing those in need and the ability to be selective in its application.

From 1945-1955, about one fifth of new housing completions were constructed by, or for, State Housing Authorities. Given the need to make up for the critical housing shortage, this was a noteworthy outcome from this Agreement. However, in 1956, under the newly elected Menzies Government, the CSHA adopted a renewed commitment to fostering home ownership, resulting in the sell-off of some 89,000 public housing dwellings, up to 1968, and 40% of public housing stock by 1980 (National Housing Strategy 1992, 80). This substantial sell-off, which was not balanced by construction of new rental stock, effectively limited access to housing support even by those deemed to meet increasingly strict criteria, re-established a commitment to a privatised housing market and a retreating role for governments in the provision of low cost housing. For the subsequent two decades, the private sector remained the dominant player in the housing sector.

Redevelopment of public housing stock in the 1960’s and 1970’s was primarily in the form of high rise, high density estates and small dwellings located well outside the inner city. There was an explicit intention that public housing should not act as a disincentive to moving into home ownership, nor should it be equal to the quality of housing being provided by the private market. This view was succinctly articulated by the Federal Minister for Housing, Annabelle Rankin (1968) in saying “that the objective of public housing policy, and the social service system generally, was assisting those in most need whilst at the same time not discouraging thrift, self help and self reliance” (Jones 1972, 7).

Premier Playford of South Australia expressed a similar view in saying, “We do not want to make housing more attractive to the detriment of home purchase. Home purchase is what we all strive to foster. If you allow people with big incomes to rent houses at very attractive rents they will never buy” (Jones 1972, 24).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 197

The end game was to ensure that public housing was primarily a pathway to private housing, once tenants had developed the appropriate financial and social skills. This view was in practice an early incarnation of the established Australian Government discourse which continued to focus on supporting of the private market as the long term provider of all housing ( The Road Home , 2008).

The Commonwealth Adopts a Welfare Housing Perspective In 1975, the Australian Commission into Poverty (the Henderson Report) found that public housing did not provide an effective response for the poor. It reported that of the 183,000 public housing tenants, only 51,000 were considered poor. Of some 132,000 State Housing Commission rental properties, just one quarter were occupied by people with incomes at, or below the poverty line. Further Henderson observed that ”the majority of the poor were not in public housing” (Caulfield, 2000, citing Yates (1997) and Henderson 1975, 100).

This finding triggered a fundamental change in the way in which Australian Government would define its involvement in the housing sector. By asserting the view that public housing should accommodate the poor, as the most deserving, the Commonwealth Housing Commission sought to redefine the way in which the Australian and State Governments allocated a highly rationalised housing resource. It did not, however, lessen the fundamental commitment to the private sector as the pre-eminent supplier of housing, of the national culture of home ownership or the use of discriminatory criteria to determine eligibility for housing assistance.

Over the ensuing two decades, the Commonwealth Government’s approach to its role in housing vacillated with the economic times. Although the Whitlam Labour Government increased funding to the States, increasingly rigorous means tests were applied. The Fraser Government significantly reduced funding under the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement, with the impost that any existing stock must be sold at market values. The Hawke Government reinstituted funding to State Housing Authorities, but this was relatively short lived with reductions reintroduced by the end of the decade.

The difficult economic conditions of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s associated with high inflation, rising unemployment and housing costs, generated growing demand on an increasingly depleted public housing program. This, in turn, led to State Housing Authorities

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 198 to adopt increasingly exacting eligibility criteria, narrowing of the target populations, being applied by the State Housing Authorities, and growing wait lists for assistance. By March 2000, some 80% of public housing tenants were recipients of income support benefits (Caulfield, 1999, 99).

From A Problem of Supply to a Problem of Affordability: The New Discourse As with the beginning of the twentieth century, the last decade of the century saw a growing number of people at housing risk arising from unemployment, increasing costs, and unmet demand for a limited supply of low cost housing. And as in the beginning of the twenty first century, the Australian Government refocused its policy to one of finance rather than supply.

The reorientation of the problem of housing from one of supply to one of affordability was supported in principle by two key housing studies undertaken in the early 1990’s, the National Housing Strategy (NHS) in 1992 and the Industry Commission of Inquiry into Public Housing in 1993. The findings of these studies provided the Australian Government with the justification for a step back from public housing provision and a renewal of its paramount commitment to support of the private housing sector.

The National Housing Strategy, which considered both public and private housing, proposed a benchmark for affordability of housing (National Housing Strategy, 1992a, 35). Supported by the subsequent Commission report, both studies found that inequities between public and private tenants were exacerbated by the Government subsidies to public housing. The Industry Commission Inquiry went further in asserting that the financial inequity in combination with secure tenancy offered by public housing, led to long queues and a disincentive for tenants to find employment. Critically, both reports recommended a larger role for the private market and the not for profit community housing sector in meeting the needs of low-income households.

Home ownership continued to be promoted as the preferred housing choice and community norm as the primary principle underpinning the National Housing Strategy. This was inherent in the recommended expansion of home ownership schemes rather than public housing infrastructure. In recognition that some people may not afford home ownership at some point, it was recommended that the community housing sector be seen

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 199 as the preferred vehicle for the delivery of social housing programs rather than state based public housing (National Housing Strategy, 1992).

Following these recommendations, the Commonwealth Government implemented a strategy based on the expansion of the community housing sector. There was a key difference that proved to be problematic in the longer term. Unlike public housing which offered relatively secure tenure, the community sector was resourced to provide emergency or transitional housing rather than secure long term housing options (National Housing Strategy, 1992).

By the mid 1990’s, the Labor reform agenda, under Hawke and Keating, followed by the rise of the conservative rationalities of the Howard government, the national housing policy continued to be grounded in the belief in the superiority of the private market in meeting social needs. This “rolling back of the state” represented a reshaping of governmental activities, and a general shift of responsibility for goods and services to the private sector (Dodson 2006, 224).

While initial moves to renegotiate the Commonwealth and State roles in housing were made in the last years of the Hawke Government, it was in the Keating “Community and Nation” statement in early 1995 that an announcement was made of the intention that the Commonwealth take on responsibility for rent assistance in both the public and private housing markets, with states assuming responsibility for housing (Keating, 1995). The intention was that the deregulation of the housing industry would stimulate greater involvement of the private sector in the delivery of low cost housing however there was no indication how the States and Territories were expected to fund the capital expenditure.

An important tenet underpinning the newly adopted neo-liberal rationality was the view of the individual as a consumer able to make informed choices. This perspective adopts the view that by regulating supply and controlling demand, the consumer is able to make a choice from the housing market place. This generated an 180 o shift from the view of housing policy as part of a broader approach to the relief of poverty. However, in an environment of limited supply and diminished capacity, the notion of choice was an illusion (Donnison, 1975).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 200

The Council of Australian Governments 1995 communiqué acknowledged support for the move “to bring about a fundamental shift in roles and responsibilities entailing the Commonwealth accepting responsibility for income support and housing affordability and the States and Territories for housing services and tenancy and property management. The Commonwealth will rely more on monitoring outcomes to pursue agreed objectives, thereby giving the States and Territories more flexibility in delivering housing assistance” (COAG 1995,4). This Agreement over-rode the 1989 requirement that funds should be directed to expansion of public housing stock. 24 Other recommendations made by COAG included adoption of an outcome based performance measures, application of a commercial management approach to housing stock and implementation of a consumer choice approach to assistance. This was a movement to adopt what can be described as a market approach to housing policy in which the emerging managerial rationale would be the moderating technique.

Less than a year later, under the newly elected Liberal National Party Coalition, the 1996 CSHA budget was slashed by some $200 million. This was accompanied by a formalised requirement that public housing allocations, as administered by the States, were to target high need groups, with rents of an equivalent proportion to that applied to the Commonwealth rent assistance benefit.

The Commonwealth Government embrace of the neo-liberal discourse completed the reframing of the definition of what should lie within the scope of Government responsibilities and actions. This, in turn, reconfigured the problem of housing to one of affordability and thereby moulded the strategies and techniques of Government housing policy.

In an environment of limited public or low cost private rental housing stock, eligibility provisions became increasingly restrictive across all State housing programs. Families, the elderly, and disabled were identified as the target population deemed to be ‘deserving’ of highest priority. Demand management meant that others in need and at risk were unable to access public housing (NSW Department of Housing Strategy; Queensland Department of Housing Strategy; Victorian Department of Human Services, 2003).

24 Despite the terms of the 1989 Agreement, the actual growth in public housing stock declined by approximately 75%, falling from 13,000 to 4,000 new additions per annum over the 7 year period from 1989.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 201

The entrenchment of the neo-liberal rationale became visible through the National and State/Territory commitment to the adoption of the managerialist approach in public administration, based on market and competition principles (Burke and Hayward 2005, 6). This saw the introduction of the purchaser/provider arrangement in social housing and the shift to development of ‘products’ to support use of private housing market. Expansion of fixed rental assistance and the promotion of new home loan schemes and tax incentives was accompanied by steps to restrict access to and remove rights to security of tenure in public housing.

The shift from provision of housing supply to demand assistance increasingly dominated the Australian Government housing strategy. Rent Assistance, which has continued to seen by the Australian Government, as a flagship for housing assistance was first introduced in 1958, as a minor part of the national income security strategy (Industry Commission 1993, 7). Importantly, both the 1992 National Housing Strategy and the 1993 Industry Commission Inquiry into Public Housing argued that the public housing system was inequitable and benefited public versus private housing tenants (NHS 1992b, 23; Industry Commission 1993, 21). Because of this, it was argued that rent assistance should be the centrepiece of housing policy, with the private market taking a greater role in meeting housing outcomes. Linking rent assistance with income security provisions, eligibility continued to be limited to those on income support payments and receiving higher level family benefits, to the exclusion of low income households with and without dependent children who were not eligible for such support (Industry Commission 1993, 14-15). The working poor were then left on the margins of the private market without the benefit of financial assistance. This signalled the continued targeting of public housing to an increasingly restrictive definition of the deserving poor households and the language of ‘complex needs’.

This re-embracing of the private housing sector was not aligned to any specific party political platform or rationality. More significantly, it reflected a re-alignment back to the foundational view of the Government role as a facilitator of home ownership and strengthening of the private market place as the provider of housing.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 202

Affordable Housing – A Re-Commitment to the Private Sector Critics of the exclusionary impacts of national housing policy sought to raise concerns about the increased housing vulnerability associated with the private rental market. International experience demonstrated the potential of cash assistance to inflate private rental costs, effectively reducing the quantum of low cost housing available and decreasing access for the most economically marginalised (Munro and Madigan 1998, 728). The loss of traditional options of cheap housing in the form of boarding and lodging houses (due to increasing regulatory demands) exacerbated the problem.

The response to such concerns became the promotion of the national More Affordable Housing Strategy. The measure of economic policy success (and housing policy, given the lack of a distinct housing ministerial portfolio 25 ) would be in the provision of affordable housing choices through the private sector. However, the term ‘more affordable’ was never defined. Accordingly the More Affordable Housing Strategy was designed to encourage high density small lot developments, reduce the quantum and administration of local government regulation and associated infrastructure requirements in order to enable investors to achieve greater return on developments. Delivery on the National More Affordable Housing platform was reliant upon complementary aspects of national economic policy. This included direct payments for rent assistance to consumers and a package of incentives to attract the market place including tax inducements for landlords, depreciation allowances, no tax on dividends (rents) and home ownership incentives such as the first home buyer’s loans and tax exemptions for home owners.

“More Affordable Housing”, which formed the basis for public and private housing programs and agreements from the mid 1990’s, was conceived as housing that provided adequate and appropriate housing for low and moderate-income households within their capacity to pay. The term, which emerged from the United States’ “Affordable Housing Program”, was conceived as generic and without reference to either the nature of tenure or occupants. Affordability itself was understood as being a measure of proportion of income allocated to housing costs, whether rent or mortgage repayments irrespective of any other associated housing expenditure. Importantly, in calculating affordability the National Housing Strategy took into account pre-tax income, did not consider household

25 Although the previous Hawke-Keating Governments had a designated housing portfolio, the Howard Government disbanded this Department within months of taking office, moving responsibility for housing into the Department of Families and Community Services.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 203 composition and excluded those individuals and families with no income as well individuals who may be living rent free (whether with family, friends, relatives.) Further, in calculating affordability, total income included rent assistance, which is not universally available. It is also relevant to reflect that in setting affordability as a percentage of income, there was a fundamental assumption that the disposal income after rent would generate equivalent affordability irrespective of income. In practical terms, this way of thinking suggested that 30% of housing costs on an annual salary of $30,000 would leave an affordable disposable income in the same way that 30% of housing costs might do for an annual salary of $60,000. In short, depending on household income, 30% on housing costs may or may not be affordable. It was concluded that given these considerations, the NHS conclusions on housing stress and affordability were fundamentally flawed (Landt and Bray 1997, 9-10).

The adoption of the re-formed approach to housing policy led to the generation of a new language, embraced by social and economic advisors both within and without the bureaucracy, to explain the fallout of the new arrangements. The reconfiguration of housing policy to one of affordability spawned the new term of housing stress . In 1997, Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee Hearings on Housing Assistance heard from a broad range of advocacy and housing organisations each of which highlighted some of the impacts of Government techniques. For example, speakers pointed to the failure of negative gearing arrangements to generate additional low cost housing options within the private market and the failure of rent assistance to meet the benchmark of proportion of income to be spent on housing, which is the payment of more than 30% of household income on rent. 26

In 2001, Berry and Hall reported to the Affordable Housing National Research Consortium that ‘if the rate of growth of stressed households experienced in the last 10 years continues, the number of households experiencing stress in metropolitan Australia will double in 15 years and reach nearly one million within 20 years. It further appears that housing affordability problems may be climbing the income ladder to affect the ‘working poor’ and even middle income households” (Berry and Hall 2001, 8). In a speech to the Queensland Parliament on 7 th October 2003, Mr Livingstone (Ipswich West) noted the considerable loss of affordable housing in the rental market. “There is not much point in

26 Because public housing services used a capping of rent to 25%, no public housing tenants were considered within scope of the ‘housing stress’ definition. However the bar of affordability was noticeably raised to 30% for those within the private market place, given the same, or lower, level of income.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 204 people receiving rent assistance if there are no houses to rent in their price bracket”, he said (Queensland Parliament 2003, 3648).

Similarly, on the 29 th October 2003, Senator Collins of Victoria speaking in Senate deliberations of the revised CSHA agreement noted that,

Ten years ago, in 1993-94, under a Labor government, funding for the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement stood at $2.8 billion. By 2003-04, under the Howard government, funding had fallen to $1.3 billion—a decline of 54 per cent. At the same time expenditure in rent assistance has increased only marginally, by seven per cent over the last 10 years. Total federal government expenditure on housing for low-income earners—that is, rent assistance plus the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement—has fallen from $4.6 billion 10 years ago to $3.2 billion in 2003-04. This is happening at a time when a great number of Australians are suffering housing stress. Research released recently by National Shelter and ACOSS shows that more than one in three rent assistance recipients—that is, more than 330,000 Australians—exceed the Howard government's measure of housing affordability. They are under housing stress because they spend more than 30 per cent of their income on rent. This is some of the material that Senator Bartlett has already covered. For instance, one in 10 recipients —that is about 85,000 people—spend more than 50 per cent of their income on rent (Commonwealth of Australia, Senate 2003, 17164).

The term “housing stress”, as well as the method of calculation, has been subject to a variety of interpretations. The Australian Bureau of Statistics, for example, calculates housing stress by working from gross income, and excludes all population at the bottom 10% of income, generating a lower proportion of households in housing stress than found by other means. In contrast, the National Centre for Social Economic Modelling (2004) calculates expenditure on housing as a proportion of disposable (after tax) income and incorporates the population in the lowest 40% of income, including the lowest 10% excluded by Government calculation. This, in turn, generates a greater number of households living in housing stress.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 205

Irrespective of the method by which calculations are made, results indicate that Berry and Hall, Livingstone and Collins underestimated the increasing gap between measures of affordability and the incidence of housing stress. Yates and Gabriel suggested that 1 million households, or 1 in every 7, expend more than 30% of incomes on housing (2006, 4). NATSEM concluded that there were 1.7 million people or 8.8% of Australian households (families and singles), including over 1 in 5 households in private rental, experience housing stress. Although Australian Bureau of Statistics (2004, 1370) calculations report only 6% of households experience housing stress, based on different modes of calculation, this was still an equivalent of 1.1 million people. 27

As noted by Disney (2004, 2), at the National Summit on Housing Affordability, convened in Parliament House by the Housing Association Industry, Australian Council of Social Services, Australian Council of Trade Unions, Australian Local Government Association and National Housing Alliance, “Affordable housing is crucial to Australia’s future. A creeping crisis in affordability has been developing for many years. But housing affordability in Australia is now at its worst-ever level”. In supporting this claim, it was noted that in the decade 1994- 2004:

• average house prices relative to income almost doubled

• the proportion of first homebuyers fell by about 30%

• average monthly payments on new loans increased by about 50%

• the proportion of low-rent homes fell by about 15%; and

• opportunities to rent public housing declined by about 20%.

The Summit concluded with a Call to Action, specifically urging the Commonwealth to adopt a leadership role, providing urgent funding support and development of housing plans that would deliver real housing outcomes.

Some two years later, in a speech to the Fabian Society in May 2006, the Shadow Minister for Housing Senator Kim Carr observed that although the triggers for becoming homeless were varied, the lack of affordable housing remained a primary cause of homelessness. Further, the decline in public housing had led to a rationalization of both public and community housing with access available only to those judged most needy , adding to the ranks of the at- risk population, and a lack of reduction in the number of people living in

27 Irrespective of the manner in which housing stress has been calculated, it has been neutral to either the quality of housing or the appropriateness to household need.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 206 insecure accommodation in a myriad of forms. Senator Carr also pointed out that increasing housing costs had led to increased pressure on the private rental market, reducing the availability of low cost housing, which is not adequately offset by the rental assistance program.

In short, despite the decades of evidence that the private market was not an effective provider of low cost housing, it remained the principle vector through which the Australian Government sought to have the inadequate supply of such housing to be delivered.

Community Housing As Beneficiary of Government Policy With a fundamental belief in the private sector as the most desirable source of housing and affordable housing in particular, the Australian Government’s approach to community housing increasingly became entrenched in the discourse of financial management and viability. With limited alternative options, housing providers within the non government sector had no real alternative to entering into an alliance with Government and the private sector as a vehicle for staking out its future. Accordingly, the community sector itself was gradually reshaped into a business model (with large business being favoured over small, and national over local providers) consistent with Government’s dominant discourse.

Although local church and benevolent societies had traditionally been the primary provider of refuge for the homeless, community housing has a relatively short history in Australia, only some three decades. National funding for community based housing was first enabled in the 1978 Commonwealth State Housing Agreement and the 1986 Agreement saw the introduction of the Local Government and Community Housing program (LGCHP), with limited funding being provided. By 1992 only 2206 dwellings had been funded for a total of $130 million investment. However, the community housing sector was a direct beneficiary of the 1992 National Housing Strategy, and its successor, the Affordable Housing Strategy.

The National Housing Strategy (2002) articulated a future role for community housing as the primary provider of low cost housing, by facilitating increased involvement of private funding to complement Government contributions. The Strategy identified the inherent conflict between financial viability (that is the minimum number of properties that are needed for viability) and generating locally responsive housing solutions. Ultimately, the

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 207

National Housing Strategy was an excellent barometer for the emergence of the market mentality that continued to dominate Australian housing policy and strategies.

Based on the findings of the National Housing Strategy and the evaluation of the Local Government and Community Housing program, the Community Housing Program came into effect in January 1993. The Community Housing Program was designed to provide financial support for the growth of the community based rental market, expecting it would provide secure tenure and low cost. It was not intended as a replacement, but rather a complement to the public housing programs also funded under the CSHA. In 1996-1997, States and Territories received Community Housing Program funding of $63.9 million.

Although there was some development in the sector, the limited nature of direct funding constrained growth. In 2003, the CSHA required that State and Territory Governments achieve a greater level of involvement from private enterprise to augment the $63 million allocation for community housing from Commonwealth funds. The aim was to create a partnership approach, based on private investment, but managed under a community housing framework. This new configuration of private investment was intended to operate on a market approach to generating affordable housing. 28

It is essential to differentiate between community housing intended to provide secure, long term, low cost rental accommodation from the complementary Crisis Accommodation Program and Supported Accommodation Assistance Programs that are intended specifically to support people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. It was for this reason that the Community Housing Forum Report (2003) sought to bring forward the challenges being experienced by the community housing sector. The critical concerns highlighted that the sector was rapidly becoming a de facto component in the homelessness strategy. The factors that were noted included:

• The tighter targeting of public housing and decreasing scale of the public housing sector

• The flow on effect of de-institutionalisation and pressure for the community housing sector to take on a ‘specialist’ housing role with outsourced support

28 In fact it is this same model which substantially frames the Australian Government’s 2008-2009 housing strategy through both the National Rental Affordability Scheme and the Economic Stimulus Package initiatives.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 208

• The increasing pressure on SAAP accommodation, increasing funding for outreach support constraining growth in the sector

• The lack of exit options in the public or private sector, leading to longer stays in crisis accommodation and a move to greater medium term to long term stays; and

• Growing pressure for community housing to accommodate those unable to be otherwise accommodated, and with outreach support.

These trends led to a significant blurring of the boundaries between the community housing sector intended to provide a diversity of locally responsive long term housing options and the crisis services intended to respond to immediate homelessness. The tensions between the two programs remained unresolved from a structural and resourcing perspective.

In 2004, a series of consultations were undertaken with Government and non Government stakeholders to establish a path forward. The outcome of such discussion was the establishment of The National (Community Housing) Strategic Framework 2004 –2008. This document described an “in principle” agreement between government and non- government stakeholders, setting out key areas of policy and practice considered to be critical to the sustainable development of community housing nationally. The key feature of the revised approach to community housing was the fostering of financial partnerships with the banking and private sector as well as the philanthropic sector in the underwriting of affordable housing. The provision of tax incentives and debt financing was intended to make the sector an attractive vehicle for expansion of its capacity. This strategy focused on the financial viability of the sector, with particular emphasis on partnerships with the private development industry. The framework in essence set the community sector apart from but contiguous to the national homelessness effort and refocused its purpose to align with the for-profit housing sector. This alignment then became the cornerstone to the 2008 National Affordable Housing Agreement and National Rental Affordability Scheme which are examined further below.

“Lackers, Slackers and Unwilling Victims” In describing images of the homeless, Rosenthal (2000) coined the phrase “lackers, slackers and unwilling victims”. The lackers, those who for reason of disability, age or personal disadvantage, and unwilling victims, those for whom circumstances alone have left them

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 209 momentarily in crisis, are deemed to be worthy of sympathy and warranting of assistance in meeting their needs. The slackers, whose absence of commitment to meet their obligation for self-reliance and independence, are undeserving of support. It is this differentiation between populations of homeless that characterised national discourse and technologies in responding to the homeless. This has left a chasm between Australian Government housing policy and the delivery of access to affordable, appropriate and secure housing for the homeless and more specifically those living in poverty.

Housing Discourse and Homelessness The flagship of Australian Government housing policy (past and present) and consequent strategies for implementation have not been predicated on providing a substantive response to homelessness. Before the mid 1970’s, religious and community groups delivered assistance to the homeless, with scant assistance of from government funding. It was only since the early 1970’s that the Australian Government policy began to acknowledge a role for the federal government in responding to the growing number of homeless.

The nature of the Australian Government response to the homeless has been in the context of ‘welfare’ rather than housing. By drawing out the trail of funding it is possible to open a window into the way in which the Australian Government identified those populations that were considered specifically deserving of assistance.

Separated from broader housing policy and funding, homelessness related policies and programs are shaped by a focus on the notion of individual ‘flaws’ which, if addressed, would resolve the problem of housing. This is best reflected by the positing of programs, including the more recent National Homelessness Strategy, designed to respond to homeless people within the ‘social program’ camp of government bureaucracy, e.g. this has included within the portfolios of Health, Social Security and more recently the Department of Families, Communities and Indigenous Affairs (which has operated under a variety of names in the last decade).

This underlying perception, and structural disconnection from housing policy itself, was expressed clearly in April 2003 by the Minister Amanda Vanstone in her opening address to the National Homelessness Conference:

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 210

There are some key factors that are predominant in our homeless population: family breakdown, domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, gambling addiction, unemployment, mental health and disability issues. In addition, we are seeing a higher prevalence of homelessness among our indigenous population. In most cases, there is a combination of factors in a person’s life that need to be considered. A holistic approach- looking at the whole person – is more likely to be successful in solving the homelessness crises. There is little point in giving someone who has an unresolved drug gambling problem more cash to pay rent when in all likelihood, they will spend the extra cash on drugs or at the pokies... Of course, we can play a role in education, counselling and prevention, but if that fails, people are very reliant on crisis assistance like SAAP. …When people don’t do all they can to help themselves they are not taking something from the taxpayer so much as taking something from people in greater need. Therefore, our approach to welfare reform is to encourage more people who have the capacity to find paid work to do so. There are new programs like the Personal Support Program that focus on helping people with barriers like homelessness, drug and alcohol problems, domestic violence and so on. We know that there are no easy solutions – there were, we would have already adopted them (Vanstone, 2003).

Strategies, Programs, and Services – the Included and Excluded As discussed earlier, the Homeless Persons Assistance Program was initiated in 1974 as the first formal program response to homelessness by the Australian Government. From this beginning, the following decade saw the emergence of three newly funded programs and services designed to meet the needs of specific populations whose precarious positions were accepted as being within the purview of Government interest or concern. Importantly, this unfolding of deserving populations reflected the notion of the unwilling victims who with appropriate support could be re-integrated as self reliant in their obligations for self-care.

In 1974, the first Commonwealth funding for women’s refuges was provided in response to strong advocacy by women’s organisations. The funding that was provided was intended solely for the provision of a crisis response for women and children escaping violence. In 1981, funding of this program was redirected as block funding for management by

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 211 individual States and Territories and in 1984 the Women’s Emergency Services Program was created.

The Social Welfare Commission, established under the Social Welfare Commission Act 1973, was responsible to the Minister for Social Security. With the advice of the Commission, the Family Services Committee was established and charged with examining the nature of preventative and supportive services that were required to assist families at risk and equally the appropriate locus of responsibility for service delivery, taking into account the various levels of government, voluntary and community organisations. Social change, the rise in family breakdown and increase in single parent families was a significant trigger for the FSC and a prime focus of its investigations. In May 1977, the Committee, established presented its report Families and Social Services in Australia to the Social Security Minister and recommended the establishment of a network of welfare services based on a Commonwealth/State agreement with service delivery being achieved through a mix of local government and community agencies. This ultimately took the shape of the Family Support Scheme, a three year pilot initiative and which was continued as the Family Support Program.

In the 1978 Welfare Ministers Conference, the State Governments sought Commonwealth financial assistance for the establishment of emergency youth refuges. The Ministers argued that adult homeless services were ill equipped to provide the level of counselling and supervision needed by young people. Through the support of the then Minister of Social Security, Senator Margaret Guilfoyle, funding was made available for a three year pilot program, known as the Youth Services Scheme. The aim was to trial the provision of services to young people less than 18 years and was limited to the provision of an emergency response, with up to three months residential assistance, after which it was expected that services would assist the young person to access long term stable housing arrangement (Department of Family and Community Services, 2004; Fopp, 1995).

Importantly, each of these programs was fundamentally crisis oriented, providing for an emergency to short term residential response, with a complementary focus on personal counselling and transition. As previous outlined, the 1978 Department of Social Security review concluded that such programs had a capacity in a limited way to address the problems experienced by some individuals, these programs were unable to achieve the

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 212 fundamental changes that would be required to address the myriad of disadvantages and problems associated with homelessness (DSS, 1978:64).

In 1982-83, the Commonwealth commissioned a comprehensive review of the national crisis accommodation programs. The Crisis Accommodation Review found that responses were hampered by inadequate funding, that there was a need for better planning and coordination, less restrictive program guidelines and greater consistency in the nature, scope and quality of service. The Review recommended the integration of existing programs (General Support, Women’s Emergency and Youth Supported Accommodation Programs) into a single program (Department of Social Security, 1982).

In January 1985, the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) was established as a joint Commonwealth/State initiative, administered by the States with the aim to “assist men, women and young people and their dependents who are either permanently homeless or temporarily homeless as a result of crisis and who need…support to move toward independent living where possible and appropriate” (Howe, 1985 cited in Fopp, 1996, 210).

Like its predecessors, SAAP was a targeted program with narrowly defined selection criteria and priorities, which differentiated between the deserving from the undeserving. In a report commissioned by the Commonwealth Department of Housing and Construction, WD Scott, Coopers and Lybrand noted that targeting was an important mechanism, treating shelter as a basic human right by aiming policy at those most in need, particularly those relying on benefits, pensions or low wages and inadequate resources and those who appear to be excluded by existing services and policies (Coopers & Lybrand W D Scott, 1985, 83). In essence, this interpretation linked the notion of ‘worthiness’ with those who had demonstrated their deserving status by virtue of eligibility.

While some changes have been made in program priorities as a result of subsequent reviews, in 1987 (review of SAAP I), 1993 (review of SAAP II), 1998 (review of SAAP III) and SAAP IV (2004), SAAP remained Australia’s primary policy and means through which funding has been made available to provide assistance is provided to people who were experiencing homelessness or are at imminent risk of becoming homeless (Erebus Consulting 2004, 1).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 213

Critically, SAAP was not based on the notion of a right to housing but rather was based upon determination of worthiness to receive assistance. The program is fundamentally inconsistent with the notion of housing as a right. SAAP operational features include selectivity and manipulation of the definition of priority and eligibility which is consistent with and promotes an identity of the homeless that are deserving of Government assistance. Most particularly, SAAP is incompatible with the notion of a right to shelter by virtue of the reported service turn-away rates. Amongst those turned aware are people who may be deemed eligible on the basis of service specifications, but are not ‘a priority’ and who are systematically described in terms of ‘unmet need’ (Fopp 1996 b, Family and Community Services, 2000, 2004). The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Demand for SAAP Accommodation by Homeless People 2003–04 (AIHW, 2006) detailed, for example, that one in two people who request immediate accommodation are turned away on an average day, and almost two in every three children accompanying a person seeking immediate accommodation are refused a place. Further, it found that family groups are more likely to be turned away from supported accommodation than other homeless Australians.

SAAP has continued to be viewed as a safety net program whose defining aims are set out in the Supported Accommodation Assistance Act (1994) as to “provide transitional supported accommodation and related support services in order to help people who are homeless to achieve the maximum possible degree of self reliance and independence” (SAAP Act, 1994).

The key objective then, of this program, is for people to ‘move on’ to independent accommodation with support being a secondary objective as a vehicle for achieving independence. The provision of support as a primary outcome represents a fundamental re-orientation. In a broad sense support becomes an exercise of socially endorsed power over the individual (Fopp, 1996). Importantly, SAAP has been predicated on the assumption that people will have the capacity to transition to independent housing options. However, the lack of exit options has been identified by every SAAP review since 1987 (Erebus Consulting, 2004; Fopp, 1996).

The shortage of accommodation after SAAP acts to accentuate, amplify and reinforce the extent of support. This occurs by placing the emphasis onto the transitional supported accommodation and related support services in SAAP rather than the

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 214

moving on. The balance of the Program is lost. This skews the Program from one in which users are supported to move out, to one in which they are supported to stay in until independent accommodation becomes available; it skews the Program from one in which transitional supported accommodation and related support services is an important means to an ends, to a program in which the means or methods assume – perhaps ‘usurp’ is more appropriate – the role of the end or goal. In this process the notion of ‘support’ is concentrated, fortified and protracted (Fopp, 1996, 215-216).

This reversal of program focus suggested in 1996 by Fopp was further articulated in both SAAP IV and the National Homelessness Strategy. SAAP IV identified four strategies, two of which were:

• client focused service delivery – which includes testing new and flexible service delivery models, enhancing and promoting existing good practice and strengthening client capacity to live independently of SAAP, and

• integration and collaboration between SAAP and other service systems, recognizing the complexity of factors affecting pathways to homelessness, and the need to establish links with other human service delivery agencies (SAAP IV) .

The 1999/2000 federal budget foreshadowed the establishment of a National Homelessness Strategy, which was launched in the form of a discussion paper in 2000, although as of the 2001 budget, no resources had been allocated to the Strategy. The key themes identified in the initial strategy focused on coordination, prevention through existing funded programs, early intervention through the provision of what were euphemistically labelled as tools as well as some flexibility in the use of existing funds, and transitional support. However, as noted in the consultation report from the Australian Federation of Homelessness, housing itself appeared only as an element of prevention rather than as a central element in the strategy. This is despite the fact that the National Homelessness Strategy had acknowledged that the lack of exits points had been a major barrier to access to SAAP services by homeless people (Department of Families and Community Services, 2000).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 215

The 2005/2006 funding allocated under the National Homelessness Strategy prioritised expenditure on demonstration projects and research. The outcomes to be achieved by this strategy were articulated as being to:

• Provide a strategic framework that will improve collaboration and linkages between existing programmes and services

• Improve outcomes for clients and reduce the incidence of homelessness

• Identify best practice models, which can be promoted and replicated, that will enhance existing homelessness policies and programmes

• Build the capacity of the community sector to improve linkages and networks; and

• Raise awareness of the issue of homelessness throughout all areas and levels of government and in the community (FaCSIA, 2005).

This Strategy did not appear to take into account the findings of the 2004 SAAP Review. The authors of that review emphasized that the lack of appropriate affordable housing in the private, community or public sectors not only constrained the ability for individuals and families to transition to independence but also created a bottle neck limiting access to services by others in crisis. In this environment, the fundamental weakness of the National Homelessness Strategy became readily evident. It did not provide any long-term action plan, or resources, nor did it seek to address the underlying structural and economic factors that underpin homelessness – poverty and access to housing (Erebus Consulting, 2004).

Government Discourse and Governing through Services Considering SAAP through the lens of governmentality, it becomes evident that it operates as a significant tool for regulating conduct. From this perspective, it can be seen that the application of the concepts of power, control, and technologies cast insight into the dominant discourse of government response to homelessness. This reciprocal interaction was observed by Swoln who reflected on the feedback relationship between knowledge, power and practice. He explained this in terms of the manner in which practice establishes the framework for discourse which in turn provides the rationale upon which practices are pursued (Swoln 1988, 184). By rendering knowledge as the dominion of the expert, discourse can be made to appear neutral. Whereas Swoln argued that this process excludes the non expert, a contrary view which this thesis proposes is that the non expert

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 216 simply gets drawn into the use of the dominant language and discourse contributing further to its acceptance and further embedding in the prevailing ways of thinking.

Fopp similarly observed that social problems are able to be reconfigured into a technological problem through the adoption of the language of the expert which in turn legitimises the exercise of political power.

However the point to be emphasised here is that the language of the causes and consequences of homelessness appears to be neutral and impartial and beyond debate…. Ironically, in this way the neutrality and power of the dominant view is enhanced; in retaining the aura of neutrality the discourse of homelessness is able to evaluate as it was a neutral tool, and its diagnosis and remedy were not dependent on a particular time or place (Fopp, 1996, 219).

Pastoral power, the power to manage and control behaviour according to social norms, is an important element of power itself. Within the context of SAAP, services become agents for regulating behaviours through the processes of support by which users are, in the language of SAAP, assessed and case managed. The adoption of this language has effectively blotted out any acknowledgement of structural and economic factors which impact on housing options (Burke, 1998). “It is as if SAAP users who are forced to stay in SAAP longer than is required undergo a form of socially acceptable apprenticeship, of which the enforced learning of how to cope with insecurity- and to be grateful at the end- is an essential part” (Fopp 1996b, 219).

A New Government – Housing Policy and the Problematic of Homelessness Despite recent declines in the proportion of Australians who own or are buying their home, home ownership continues to hold a special place in the Australian psyche (Senate Select Committee on Housing Affordability, 2008).

Although homelessness had a subterranean profile within the public domain in the lead up to the 2007 national election, control of the rapidly rising interest rates for home owners with mortgages was a much debated subject. However, shortly after the new administration was in place, announcements were made of initiatives to increase the supply of housing and to address the projected increase in the number of homeless people.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 217

This continued to be a much promoted initiative both as part of a response to the global financial crisis and as a means to address the lack of supply of low cost housing.

It is arguable whether the initiatives advanced by the current Australian Government significantly challenge the fundamental principles that have underpinned Government rationalities, and in particular the way of approaching government’s role in housing, over the last century. Current initiatives are underpinned by a continuing commitment to the primacy of the private sector in the development of housing infrastructure and a prevailing perception that people who are homeless have limitations which need to be ‘managed’ by government services. This latter perception is demonstrated by the separate suite of strategies for addressing homelessness which were presented in a separate package under the banner of “The Road Home”. These two distinctly different policy responses reflect an ongoing discourse that characterises Government thinking. It is for this reason that it is appropriate to consider the underlying rationality for each and to examine the extent to which there is any synergy between the two.

Adoption of National Affordable Housing Agreement- Addressing Housing Supply In February 2008, a Senate Select Committee on Housing Affordability was formed to investigate the barriers to home ownership and the role of all levels of government in facilitating access to affordable home purchase. In June 2008, the Committee submitted its report, A good house is hard to find: Housing affordability in Australia . Drawing on the submissions to the inquiry, the Senate Select Committee concluded that whilst home ownership remains the preferable form of housing tenure in Australia, there is a need to recognise that affordability issues are profound for those needing to access the private rental market. Further, the Committee concluded that social housing is unable to meet the needs of the most disadvantaged and that the Commonwealth Rent Assistance scheme is fundamentally flawed. In acknowledging the limitations of the Rental Assistance Scheme, the Committee admitted the Scheme was unable to respond to differential market rents which are location based and that it continued to exclude many people on low incomes who were not eligible or able to access other income support benefits. In recommending the expansion of the social housing system, emphasis was placed upon adopting strategies which enhance the financial sustainability of the community housing sector through greater partnerships with the private sector. Similarly, the Committee supported and

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 218 promoted strategies which would create incentives for the private sector to invest in low income housing.

In July 2008, the Australian Government launched a new program, A Place to Call Home , in cooperation with the State and Territory Governments. The aim of this program was to fund 600 new properties over a five year period, to provide permanent housing for people who might otherwise be accommodated in some form of emergency accommodation. The housing was allocated to preferred support services, with the expectation that following the period of support that tenants would have been adequately enabled to be independent and self reliant, with the property being returned to the public housing landlord. The inference that can be drawn from this approach is that there was a continuing Government perception that the ‘problem’ lies in the individual who needs to be supported and counseled to be rehabilitated and to learn the skills of independence rather than a lack of affordable housing options.

In November 2008, the Council of Australian Governments agreed to the replacement of the longstanding Commonwealth State Housing Agreement, the Crisis Accommodation Program and the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program with a new federal, state and local government National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA). The stated principle aim of the Agreement is to improve housing affordability, recognising the particular disadvantage of Indigenous and homeless people. In support of this Agreement, and taking into account the commitment of the Government to stimulus spending in the face of the global financial crisis, considerable expenditure was allocated to the construction of new housing and the repair and maintenance of existing housing. Consideration of the key features of the funding arrangements for the implementation of the National Affordable Housing Agreement provides a window view into the principles which underpin this commitment. Although the National Affordable Housing Agreement is supported by two separately badged programs they share a common characteristic – the creation of incentives for the private sector.

Under the National Affordable Rental Scheme (NRAS) direct and recurrent financial subsidies (in order of $8,000 per annum per property) are provided to private investors willing to construct rental properties at the lower end of the market place, (that is rental costs cannot exceed 80% of market rents) for a period of ten years, after which there are

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 219 no further restrictions on the management (or disposal) of the property. Although increasing the supply of lower cost rental accommodation has been endorsed by such peak bodies as the Australian Federation of Homelessness and state branches of SHELTER, the strategy for its achievement is consistent with a century of commitment to the private sector. This is reflected by the requirement that nearly all NRAS property investment be on a large scale basis (80%), which means that local community sector is largely excluded from the program. This is consistent with the commercialization of the previously not for profit sector, creating incentives for such organisations to work in partnership with private investment sector and through this process to become financially viable independent of public monies.

Additionally, there is an implicit assumption that 80% of market rent will be affordable for those at the lowest end of the income pyramid. Given the differential in market rents, particularly in areas of greatest housing demand such as capital cities, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that even at this reduced rate, rental costs would not be affordable for those on the limited levels of income support payments. The outcome is more likely to be providing some housing options for low income families (as the first CSHA in 1945) but unlikely to impact on those at the lowest end, that is those living in poverty.

The second arm of the infrastructure development program is funded under the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Package. Accommodation is expected to built largely on privately held land (or Commonwealth land made available for this purpose) and privately constructed. Under this program housing is intended to be managed as social housing that is by public and community housing. Although administered by the states and territories, the Commonwealth Government has issued guidelines which specify the terms under which the program is expected to be administered. It is noteworthy, for example, that whilst the guidelines indicate that the construction aspect of the various projects needs to include small to medium enterprises (as a component of the job creation objective), this does not apply to the not for profit social housing sector (FAHCSIA 2009, Social Housing New Construction Guidelines).

A fundamental aspect of both of these programs is the reliance on the private sector as the primary stakeholder and the growth of the community sector within a business model of property development. The objective is to move to a model in which the smaller locally

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 220 based community housing providers are increasingly marginalized in a competitive tendering environment, and larger organisations are enabled to adopt an increasing dominance in the social housing sector. The ultimate preferred outcome is the generation of a small number of “social housing companies” which are labeled as growth organisations that operate on a commercial basis, independent of recurrent public funding, and are able to balance private style investment in housing development and social housing management. This is consistent with a rationality in which the housing policy is grounded in a private sector model even when referring to the not for profit sector. From an economic rationalist perspective, this orientation of driving out the smaller local provider to the benefit of the larger national providers and housing companies has merit. At the same time, there is an intrinsic conflict with the Government’s social objectives of local community capacity building.

It is also relevant to acknowledge that funding under these initiatives does not include any allocation for operational costs, but rather focuses solely on construction. Given the costs associated with the expansion of a service which historically has been limited to the administration of government funded services, the lack of operational funding further disadvantages the service provider that has had no substantial opportunity to generate savings for future operational or investment purposes. Ultimately, the two to four year funding of housing construction is as much about the economic stimulus strategy as a housing policy. Indeed, a separate strategy has been established for addressing homelessness labeled with separately objectives and targets.

Homelessness – A Service Response Just two months after signing off on the National Affordable Housing Agreement, the Commonwealth and State/Territory Governments signed off on a new agreement, the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. This Agreement was intended as complementary, although separate from the National Affordable Housing Agreement, with a primary focus on support service development. In placing the emphasis in this direction, it reflects a not subtle presumption that homelessness is to a large extent an outcome of some deficiency which must be addressed through interventions that will put the homeless ‘back on track’.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 221

Not long after this new COAG agreement was signed off, the Prime Minister with the Minister for Housing issued a press released on 27 th January announcing that “The Rudd Government will develop a comprehensive, long-term plan to tackle homelessness as a matter of national priority” (Media release, 2008). An expert panel, as described by the Minister, was appointed by the Government to develop a Green Paper, a consultation document, on issues and strategies for tackling homelessness. In May 2008, the Green Paper “ Which Way Home ” was launched for public consultation, and on 21 December 2008 the Government’s strategy for addressing homelessness was launched under the badge “The Road Home ”. Although the strategy would be usefully described as ambitious in nature and sets what might be well considered formidable targets, halving the number of homeless and offering supported accommodation to all rough sleepers who need it (that is those with no alternative except the street, a vehicle and the like) by 2020, the initiatives funded under this policy are largely a patchwork of responses that fail to address the critical problem of ‘poverty’ or structural considerations such as work force trends as part of the equation. This would seem to be a fundamental gap in any strategy.

In setting out the Government’s strategy for reducing homelessness, four avenues of activity or objectives were identified, with considerable practical overlap across these areas.

The objective labeled as “turning off the tap” is expected to reduce the number of people who become homeless principally through the provision of support services as an early intervention strategy. However, it is not without its limitations. One such commitment, for example, is providing ‘no exits into homelessness’ from institutional care such as prisons, mental health, drug or alcohol services or statutory care. The lack of apparent synergy between housing and non housing policy and strategies was well identified by the Australian Medical Association in December 2008. Whilst acknowledging that the National Partnership on Homelessness commitment, the AMA through its president, noted that this was unlikely to be achievable in the current environment. Given the pressure on acute care beds in mental health wards, there is no available alternative option than to exit patients no longer requiring acute care back into the community, whether or not they are housed. Dr Capolingua (Canberra Times, 2008) observed that:

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 222

…doctors would discharge patients even if they had no place to go or risk banking up an already stretched system ''It's wonderful to make a statement that we'll not discharge anyone into homelessness, but you have to put the reality behind that ... Where are they going to go? So the equation is not complete...

..a doctor's primary concern were patients who arrived with acute needs. We know we need 3750 more beds across Australia in the public hospital system ... but if you can't discharge them into homelessness and we can't leave them in the hospitals, where do they go? 'If they stay in the hospital they back up the beds and increase the problem we have existing.'' If we discharge them they have nowhere to go.''

She said the policy would harm an already ailing public health system.

Similarly, some of the initiatives targeted lie outside the scope of Australian Government powers. For example, the extent to which women experiencing domestic violence will be able to remain in the family home will be a matter of state based court systems, which to date has been limited in many jurisdictions as a consequence of both state legislation and judicial prejudice (Schindeler, 2009).

The second vector of initiatives is situated under the banner of improving and expanding services. Key initiatives include workforce development, national standards (which in fact have been in place for community housing for over a decade), testing funding models which reflect individual need, and technology development.

Again acknowledging the importance of the potential impact of new workforce development policies and programs, there remains nonetheless a reasonable space for considering how those without skill, experience and educational disadvantage are likely to fare in competing for employment in an already difficult labour market in which part time employment and underemployment is a significant feature across the community.

The provision of additional public and community housing, aged care places, implementing a building and upgrading program for indigenous housing and again improving services are identified as critical to achieving the objective of ‘breaking the cycle’ of homelessness.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 223

However, the extent to which the building program, set out in the context of housing strategies, will deliver affordable options is less evident.

Finally, in setting a research agenda, population based research and cost- benefit analyses are seen as the primary targets. Again, this is linked to the commitment to technology. However, by focusing on service access as the source of ‘evidence’ it is clear that it is unlikely to be inclusive, not only missing out on those who fail to present to a service, but equally those who fall outside the limited definitions that underpin such tools of enumeration and categorisation.

It would be premature (that is, impossible) to draw any substantive conclusions about the long term impact of the housing and service funding initiatives incorporated in these two national agreements between the Commonwealth and State Governments. Although on a superficial level it would be reasonable to suggest that the composite of Rudd Government initiatives have brought a new visibility to the role of Government in responding to homelessness. What is equally clear, however, is that the fundamental discourse, technologies and thinking has not changed. Although the quantum of dollars which have been nominally allocated to programs will ostensibly add to housing and service resources, there is no substantive evidence how this has or will change the outcomes for people who are homeless surviving on poverty level incomes and facing well entrenched structural barriers to employment or housing.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 224

Chapter 8 – Conclusions

Governmentality, Alliances and Others The aim of this thesis has not been to establish a position for or against any particular argument with respect to homelessness, nor does it advocate for any particular form of response. Rather, it has sought to make visible the types of thinking, actions and knowledge that have shaped how the homeless and homelessness have come to be seen by the Australian Government as a problem and to create a space in which to consider alternative ways of thinking.

Adopting the framework of governmentality has made it possible to draw out the critical forces and conditions that have shaped how homelessness has been understood and how it has been problematised by Government. An important corollary to the identification of a problem is the ascription of responsibility for solving the problem, that is determining that it is a matter for which action must be taken and by whom. Is this a problem for which Government has an obligation to act upon, or is this a problem which the individual must resolve, or the community? For example, it can be argued that techniques such as Neighbourhood Watch and Community Safety Plans are part of a strategy to allocate responsibility for crime control to the community itself. ) This has meant exploring the way in which Governments have seen their relationship to and responsibilities for the population, the responsibilities of the individual and the population to Government and to the community.

However, Government thinking and action does not happen in a vacuum, but rather it is influenced by and in turn influences a myriad of alliances and relationships within Government itself as well as with those external to Government. Such alliances have a feedback and reciprocal character which is grounded in a power/knowledge relationship. Of vital relevance is the relationship between Government and those that are ascribed the title of experts, that is those who provide the knowledge upon which Government is able to justify its position, actions or inactions. This is not a neutral relationship. The experts to whom Government will listen may, for example, be selected because they have a predisposition to particular ways of thinking, such that a shared world view will shape the questions that are asked and the knowledge that is generated. Further, not only does the ascription of expert carry with it a degree of power itself, but can also carry with it a hidden force of compliance, that is the production of knowledge which is consistent with prevailing

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 225 rationalities and the fund provider, be it Government, the University or private sector. Therefore, unravelling the linkage between power and knowledge is a necessary component for understanding how homelessness has been seen as a problem within or outside of the realm of Government action.

A complementary vector of relationship lies between Government and economic institutions and actors involved in the production of wealth. The nature of this relationship is a fundamental consideration in defining the relationship of Government to the population. Where responsibility is placed (with respect to any ‘problem’ or realm of activity) is determined largely by the values and rationalities which underpin Government thinking. Operating within a complex alliance characterised by both regulation and support, there is a recurring theme of mutual cost and benefit for those in this relationship.

There is also an important relationship, and indeed alliance, between the Government and the population. This is based upon a collective view of the nature of that relationship. This means that there is a common understanding about the obligations of the Government, the obligations of the individual, and how these are intended to work for the greater good. It is in this context that the notion of the independent, self regulating individual operates consistent with the accepted norms of conduct of the Government itself. Importantly, there is also a nexus across the alliances, with a mutual understanding of how each will function to support the other.

A consequence is the way in which behaviours that are seen as deviating from the accepted norms and expectations are interpreted and responded to by those in alliance; again this involves Government, private enterprise, external experts and the broader community. This also entails making judgements about the forms or types of deviations that are deemed to be acceptable and those which are not, and the ramifications of this way of thinking. The influence of culture is critical and is reflected in the nature of the language which is used and sends messages about the way in which such deviance is perceived.

Homeless people have been viewed as deviant from the norm for centuries. Accordingly, people who are homeless have been outside the threads of alliance which bind the various interests into common cause. They are, and the condition is, unequivocally understood as being ‘other’ – that is different. The aim then of this thesis has been to contribute to

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 226 knowledge by making explicit the conditions which have enabled particular ways of thinking and responding to homelessness to be embraced and thereby make visible alternatives. This has included examining the nature of discourse, the production of knowledge and the influence of various alliances.

In drawing together the lines of investigation which have been followed, it is possible to answer the core questions that have been posed. These are:

How the homeless have come to be a category of population and homelessness a problem which needs to be governed?

What are the intended and unintended consequences of such responses for the homeless and the homelessness? What alternative possibilities emerge from the spaces revealed from this analysis?

How have the homeless come to be a category of population, and homelessness a problem which needs to be governed?

Although the label of ‘homeless’’ did not appear in Australian Parliamentary discourse until the latter part of the twentieth century, people who were homeless had been circumscribed for centuries as a category of population. Historically linked to criminality and subject to regulation, the category of vagrant was known and acted upon for its illegality rather than for homelessness per se. However as a criminalised condition and associated with criminal acts, the vagrant (homeless) population was viewed as being part of an ‘other’, separate from the broader community.

The criminalisation of homelessness was transported by the British to Australia from pre- federation and continuing through the twentieth century. This had the force and impact of viewing ‘the problem’ as one of protection of the community from the crime of the vagrant. Despite some disquiet with respect to the sub standard living conditions of the, this was more closely aligned to problems of health, moral judgement and workforce

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 227 participation. Such concerns were not extended to the vagrants who continued to be viewed as a parasitic and criminal population.

The morphing from criminal to a population known specifically by the condition of being homeless was a gradual process. In this process criminal codes continued to include offenses which applied uniquely to the homeless. At the same time a new discourse emerged which would redefine and establish a population known solely by the condition of being homeless. Importantly, while decreasingly viewed as criminal, criminalising offenses as well as active discrimination continued. Equally, the population of homeless continued to be constructed and portrayed by Government and its allies as well as in the public media as ‘other’, that is fundamentally different from the community, failing to behave in accordance with cultural expectations.

Once a population has been labelled, and this label is used in popular language and debate, it has inherent within it meanings that are given substance through the processes of quantification. This placement of people who are experiencing homelessness into a population which is able to be counted, characterised in terms of various forms of deficit (such as mental illness, substance abuse, lack of education, social deviance or laziness) and therefore requiring management in some way, has been fundamental to the defining of the problem. The problem is not homelessness itself. The problem that needs to be addressed is that people who are homeless are not self-governing, independent or contributing to the national wealth through labour force participation in accordance with Government and community expectations. Indeed, the problem lies in the population whose behaviours are inconsistent with the dominant norms. However, the process of differentiation has effectively created sub populations of homeless delineating between the deserving and undeserving of compassion. This differentiation has not, nonetheless, had an appreciable impact on the effective outcome; that is the problem remains clearly posited with the people who, irrespective of the variously ascribed causal factors, are classified as homeless. If the problem is then the individual, the making of a population is enabled by the attribution of characteristics which are deemed to be common to (and often thought to be explanatory of) the homeless. In this way, the homeless are both atomised and deemed to be a population that can be acted upon.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 228

Conditions of Possibility From the early regulation of those moving from country to town for work, systems have been in place aimed at managing people who are essentially ‘on the move’ rather than attached to a specific land or place. The regulation and control of those who were not attached to place emerged as the first efforts at counting and classifying of people who were deemed to be vagrant, or in more contemporary terminology, homeless. The development of mathematical techniques created interest in counting and classifying populations and the use of ‘the science of statistics’ as a technology for managing populations. This has remained a primary tool of governments despite being fraught with limitations, as is the case with the enumeration of the population of homeless people.

The extent to which the homeless have been made visible as a problem, which requires counting and classification, has been variable over time. What emerges then as a critical question is: What are the conditions in which this population becomes visible and problematic? It is this question which opens up the possibility of viewing the impact of the rationalities and alliances which shape the nature of governmentality. Equally, it is the conditions which set the environment in which the population becomes of interest, to be counted, described and classified.

This thesis has been able to identify the points in time in which specific social and economic conditions have been present and have had the consequence of rendering the population of homeless visible as a problem. Further, whether Government has acted directly or indirectly, the interpretation of the nature of the problem associated with the homeless population has been a function of the way the problem has been understood. It is this environment which has been conducive to the generation of the knowledge which is applied and guides Government technologies and techniques for action.

To appreciate the emergence of the homeless as a population (with a separate identity from that of the vagrant) to be counted and classified requires an understanding of the circumstances that generated such change. Although the Australian Government had engaged in facilitating the development of housing largely from the end of the Second World War (as well as providing some forms of income support), such engagement was not in any way related to the identification of homelessness as a relevant problem or reason for intervention.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 229

A number of significant social and economic changes occurred in the decade between 1970 and 1980. Such changes had consequential impacts which would transform the well established perception of vagrancy and vagrants as the character of homelessness. Although the Whitlam Government had introduced the term ‘homeless’ into Government language, the focus of response was on a stereotypical image of the chronic homeless, excluded and other.

An important social and arguably economic change, during this period was a growing international and national feminist movement. The growing acceptance and assertion of women’s rights was accompanied by, and associated, with a number of related social changes. One aspect of such change was a growing intolerance by women to victimisation in the form of domestic or family violence. As an increasing number of women and children chose to escape such situations, women’s support groups became concerned about the lack of service infrastructure available in a time of crisis. In the face of a strong advocacy campaign, the Australian Government provided funding for the first time for women’s shelters. Importantly the funding of refuges was not linked with homelessness, but rather was understood to focus on providing safety as much as shelter. The breakdown in the traditional family structure and the increase in the number of single women and women with children at risk of homelessness as a consequence became a pivotal point in introducing new ways of thinking about the role of Government and who was indeed homeless.

Over the following decade economic downturns and restructuring of the labour force contributed to unprecedented (high) levels of unemployment, particularly among school leavers and young people who in any other period since the Second World War would have smoothly transitioned into the labour market. Unable to obtain employment, and with virtually no other sources of income, young people became increasingly visible on the streets, literally. Again, a robust campaign by advocacy groups in combination with the less than complementary reporting by the mass media on homeless youth (who portrayed young people in the worst possible light) placed the ‘problem’ firmly in the public eye and created an environment in which Government action was demanded.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 230

Given these changes and visibility of a new category of homeless, the images of the chronic, alcoholic, single male and vagrant con artist were no longer sufficient in the public mind. Although the newly emerging homeless population was considered in a large part to blame for their condition, and stigmatised as other, there was growing public demand that the ‘Government do something’. The pressure from the community for action began to be reflected in Parliamentary debate. The problem of an increasingly visible population of homeless youth and public awareness of the victims of domestic violence became recurrent subjects for Parliamentary speeches.

It was in this situation that there emerged an impetus to define, count and classify Australia’s homeless population. This led to considerable debate over definition, those who should and should not be classified as homeless and how they should be counted. The process of enumeration was (and continues to be) greatly reliant on data collected by funded services and is firmly grounded in the framework of demand management. Despite limited attempts to undertake one-off counts of people sleeping rough, the general limitations associated with collection methods has been largely accepted. This reliance on service based ‘counts’ provided Government with a valued ability to create profiles of people in terms of their demographic characteristics, ascribed needs and deficiencies (as determined by the reporting agency). The collection of such characteristics enabled the building up of a bank of information with which to classify, describe and pathologise. This process of classification and description became a significant component of the process of enumeration itself, and formalised the establishment of a governable population known as homeless with specific pre-determined characteristics.

Working variously in loose alliance and intimate relationship with Government, there have been other interested parties in the enumeration and classification of the homeless. With the incremental involvement of the Australian Government in providing financial support for crisis services, a new industry emerged dependent on Government funding and expected to ‘manage’ the homeless. For those organisations the ability to demonstrate the quantum and nature of demand was critical. By generating a profile of demand, individual deficit and disadvantage both individual organisations and the sector as a whole sought to position themselves for funding security and growth. At the same time, these same agencies and peak bodies, seeking to be seen as advocates for the homeless, were

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 231 effectively complicit in the perpetuation of a discourse of individual deficit, the importance of ‘rehabilitation’ and management, and the imaging of other.

This then created the condition for the emergence of a new set of alliances. In addition to the service industry, new alliances were built between the Government and the research community in concert with an industry involved with the production, collection and reporting of data across the human services regimes. Also reliant on Australian Government funding, these sectors were drawn upon and effectively argued for their ability to demonstrate their role in the production of information which could be reconfigured and presented as evidence to meet Government needs for policy development. While established to appear at arm’s-length from Government, the research and information management sectors worked to a brief that demanded the delivery of an enumeration and classification regime specified by Government. While recognising the desire to make a positive contribution, it is also essential to acknowledge the inherent benefits derived by the individuals and organisations operating in this sector. In addition to the financial benefits of funding support, equally important was the capacity to establish valued credentials as an expert advisor to Government, which in turn generated benefits in terms of power, recognition and continuing funding.

In these conditions, the counting of people who presented as homeless played a formative role in fashioning a category of population, and ensured that homeless people were made visible as a population with specific characteristics. The creation of sub populations, that is young people, women and children escaping domestic violence, the mentally ill, substance abusers and the like, in turn informed and provided the basis for action collectively and individually. There has been a feedback relationship between those who are and what is counted, systems of classifying and categorising and strategies for asserting linkages between the enumeration process, characterisation and the ascription of causation. These processes have then played an instrumental role in the making of the population of homeless visible, imaged, understood and able to be governed.

Critically these processes occur in an environment in which particular ways of thinking (rationalities) shape the generation of knowledge, the nature of discourse and the determination of particular ways of acting and governing. Therefore, to understand why and how the population of homeless people have been problematised in particular ways,

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 232 the methods of governing which have been employed and the consequences (intended and unintended), it is essential to excavate and make visible the rationalities which have coloured the perception and perspective of Government and its alliances.

The Framework for Governing - Understanding Rationalities Although the role of the expert advisor and the processes of Parliamentary inquiry have been crucial to the way in which Government understands and forms a view about any particular matter, such understandings are equally influenced by the fundamental beliefs of Government. Accordingly, perceptions of the homeless, the production of knowledge, the making of judgements and methods of governing are coloured by and reflect higher order social, economic, and political values and rationalities.

A social and political environment in which it is acceptable for Government to discriminate against (or for) populations based on particular characteristics provides the conditions for generating justifications for discrimination and disadvantage. Whether such discrimination has been based upon race, sex, age, nationality, disability, hereditary status or wealth, it establishes a way of thinking which can be extrapolated to an expanding array of characteristics or populations.

Given that from pre-federation through successive Australian Government administrations the discourse of universal rights has been rejected, being a signatory to international agreements proclaiming such rights is more an exercise in appearance than practice when applied at the national level. This extends not only to the failure to legislate or act on the delivery of rights, but also to the lack of commitment to the delivery of many of those rights outlined in such Agreements. A right to shelter and the means by which to obtain life’s essentials including nutrition and health care are included in each of these Agreements. Further, despite enacting anti-discrimination legislation, these laws do not prohibit discrimination on the basis of socio economic status nor are there any substantive means of enforcement by the body responsible for oversight, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. This then creates the condition in which in the absence of a

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 233 rights discourse, discrimination is legitimatised and has been demonstrated to act as a practical barrier for many in accessing housing through the private market place.

In the same way, a culture in which the prevailing rationality sets self reliance and financial independence as the standard for the individual, the group and the nation, failure to conform to such norms of behaviour becomes the basis for exclusion and relegation to the status of ‘other’. This does not preclude the ability for differentiation and exception, creating a capacity to delineate between those who may be deemed worthy of assistance and sympathy and those who are not. It is the ability to discriminate between the deserving and undeserving that enables different forms of governing to be adopted. The principles underpinning such differentiation are largely historic, but it is by examining the technologies adopted by Government that it can be seen that even those deemed worthy may experience the same disadvantage as those who are not, particularly in an environment in which structural conditions underpin such disadvantage.

Three fundamental features of the prevailing rationalities which have shaped Australian Government realms and methods of governing have endured across political regimes of the day. From the pre-federation period through to the establishment of the Australian Constitution, there has been a prevailing acceptance of the ability to and justification for differentiating between the deserving and undeserving. This is well reflected by a reticence to circumscribe rights or entitlements without exception. This has applied uniformly across realms of civic rights, placed conditions upon the exercise of rights and the responsive nature to offenses against rights rather than a proactive approach to the protection of rights. In this environment not only may there be a lack of protections, but equally an overt acceptance of discrimination for the undeserving. This is exemplified by the effective denial of franchise through administrative arrangements which have in practical terms regulated out access to this entitlement for homeless persons. It is also exemplified by the lack of reasonable protection against discrimination through the operation of tenancy database services despite the regulation of the industry.

Closely associated with this way of thinking has been the way in which the Australian Government has viewed its role with respect to the provision of income support. Such support has been highly regulated, defining those who are deserving of such assistance, the conditions under which may be provided and the manner in which the extent of assistance

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 234 is determined. Of particular note has been the reticence of successive Governments to adopt or employ indicators of poverty, below which individuals have insufficient income to meet basic needs. This disinclination is closely aligned to the intrinsic belief that the provision of more than the minimum level of support would act as a disincentive for the individual to become self reliant and self supporting. The more recent introduction of the mutual obligation requirements and a highly regulatory approach to administration of this program is a reflection of this way of thinking. This method of governing not only effectively marginalises those unable to be compliant, but provides a mechanism for active discrimination. Similarly, by payment of income support at levels which are not sustainable in an environment of limited low cost housing supply effectively renders homelessness a logical consequence. While applicable across all age groups, discrimination in rate of income support has added to the disadvantage experienced by young people.

A corollary to this way of thinking has been a commitment to and strong alliance between Governments and the private sector. The belief in the private sector as the vehicle through which the prosperity is achieved and through which the individual is able to achieve independence and self reliance, is reflected in terms of the benefits made available through taxation, through various financial supports and regulatory regimes. This reliance on the private sector is particularly well reflected in the arena of housing. Despite periodic engagement with the provision of social housing through a variety of subsidies, this has traditionally been a minor role in the housing market place. Further, although conditions of access to such assistance has varied from time to time as regulated by both the Australian and State Governments, the rationalisation of housing support resources (whether through housing or financial subsidies) has meant that supply is inadequate even to meet eligible demand. At the same time, the iconic belief in home ownership and in the capacity of the for-profit housing sector has underpinned housing discourse, even in times of economic downturn. Again, the grounding of current Government housing infrastructure programs is based largely on the provision of financial incentives to the private market.

Collectively, these fundamental premises have operated jointly to exclude people who are homeless from the discourse of merit for inclusion other than by way of exception. It is in this context then that knowledge produced the means by which to determine the deserving and undeserving and the technologies which are employed as the vehicle for governing.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 235

Knowledge and Technologies Over the course of time, there have been differing perspectives on the impact of being homeless for the individual and the community. With proponents arguing from the perspective of promoting moral well being, protecting children, providing improved public health, and meeting labour force demands, it has been commonly suggested that there is a role, if not responsibility, for Government action. Irrespective of the basis for the call to action there has also been a shared conceptualisation of people who are homeless as being separate and different from the general community. This conceptualisation of people who are homeless as ‘others’ has remained a hallmark of the way in which evidence has been produced to explain why people are homeless and to guide Government action.

The way in which the problem of homeless people has been portrayed has emanated from a conglomeration of reports, studies and inquiries all principally funded directly or indirectly by Government. Whether through Parliamentary Committee, private sector consultants, academic researchers or service practitioners, each has sought to demonstrate the reasons why people are homeless and to a lesser extent the technologies which can most effectively address causation. In practical terms this has meant a mix of small targeted studies focused on specific ‘subjects’, analyses of qualitative experience generated either at a local scale or from quantitative studies reliant upon service data, and revisiting past ‘evidence’ to reassemble it into a different form. The capacity to ascribe (irrespective of the quality or nature of evidence used for such ascription) certain characteristics to people who are homeless, and further to produce evidence of the presence of such characteristics based on agency reporting serves the dual purpose of defining the population and providing explanations that are consistent with the increasingly stereotypical image of ‘other’. As importantly, it provides the focus for those who would generate evidence of such characteristics – which leads to the question as to whether it is a matter of finding what one is looking for? In a somewhat cynical tone, if the question is how many people have a particular characteristic, is not likely that researchers will find evidence of its presence? Or in another perspective, to what extent are those same characteristics (e.g. mental health problems, substance use, and the like) found in the population who do have homes?

The critical aspect of such knowledge generation has been its preoccupation with demonstrating individual deficit. Irrespective of the positioning of the Government or its

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 236 experts asserting specialist knowledge, there has been a consistent effort to ascribe characteristics of people who are homeless as factors to causation. This is then a crucial feature of the making of the population of homeless people visible and understood. Even in the argument of structural factors of causation, there has been a residual connection drawn between the characteristics of the population and their susceptibility to externalities. This has consequences for framing the problem of the homeless and allotting of responsibility and culpability.

This is exemplified by successive Governments’ efforts to redirect financial responsibility for adults (18 years and over) to parents, excluding such adults from entitlements based solely on age. In this environment not only are adults (18-24) deficient in not being self supporting (despite the highest levels of unemployment since the end of World War II), but equally families are deficient by failing to take on responsibility for family members. It is this which exemplifies the notion of Government’s role in regulating the conduct of the population. This is irrespective of either economic conditions or family circumstance.

Similarly, there is a historic focus on lack of participation in the workforce as a primary feature and cause of the homeless person’s situation. Whilst vagrants and vagrancy was criminalised on the basis of lack of means or employment, this has not substantially changed. Despite continuing changes during the twentieth century and beyond in the nature of work, in the types of industries which are growing and disappearing, workforce restructuring, and contraction in the scope of employment opportunities, this has not entered into the main discourse of homelessness. In contrast, the discourse remains one of personal default, lack of workforce participation and the failure of the individual to be self reliant. In spite of the introduction of management tactics which are intended to facilitate access to employment and training as administered by Government as part of its regime to access income support, there is little evidence of strategies to counteract the well demonstrated barriers to participation associated with both structural issues and being homeless. The conclusion which emanates from this way of understanding and prevailing technologies is that the individual’s situation is an outcome of the individual’s inability or unwillingness to work. Those who will not fulfil their obligations are by definition unworthy.

Since the establishment of services specifically for people who are homeless there has been a strong focus on the rehabilitation process through the intervention of support workers,

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 237 operating under a variety of titles over time. This is not a new technology and in rationality is consistent with the early century work houses and the like. Indeed SAAP services are expected to act as a conduit to training, employment and ensuring that obligations are met to ensure access to other supports. The adoption of language of complex needs and processes of case management reflect the primary perception of the homeless person as one who has flaws which can only be addressed through such intensive guidance. This has developed into a primary tool of governing and remains an intrinsic characteristic of Government responses to the homeless. This is not to argue that there are not people with a range of problems, or that the needs may not be complex or may be easily addressed given secure, affordable housing, but rather that there is not necessarily a causal link between such problems and being homeless, which is inferred. Further, it effectively clouds appreciation of the fact that there are those whose need is limited to an inability to access affordable housing and that the apprenticeship in SAAP is an unnecessary but virtual requirement to access a home.

It would be fallacious if not unfairly selective to ignore the fact that there have been numerous inquiries and studies which have acknowledged structural factors as critical factors in the incidence of homelessness. This has included acknowledging economic factors (such as lack of housing supply, unemployment rates and workforce restructuring), social factors (such as changes in family structure and geographic isolation) and the impacts of Government programs (such as deinstitutionalisation and criminalisation). However, the technologies which are most widely promoted and those which have been adopted by Government have a fundamental disconnect from such arguments.

Following the history of the Australian Government’s engagement in the housing arena it has been seen to be principally a recalcitrant one. With home ownership as the preferred form of tenure, active promotion of a strong private sector, and a preference for relying on States as the responsible level of government, there has been relatively little ownership of responsibility with respect to meeting the quantum of need within the community. Although early priorities set by State Governments focused on the low income worker and families, the Henderson Inquiry into Poverty strongly recommended that there was a need to refocus public housing on those who were unable to afford market rents, given that it found a significant proportion of people living in private rental were in before and after housing poverty. The consequence of the increasing rationalisation of housing resources

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 238 throughout the social housing sector has meant that even the homeless applicants must provide evidence of predetermined indicators of high level needs to qualify for any chance of accessing housing. This provides additional evidence that reaffirms the position of ‘other’.

As cited in this work, there has been a wide range of studies undertaken by academics, by service providers and Parliamentary enquiry. The aim of such work has been to visit, revisit and further document not only the problem of the homeless, but more recently the problem with the quality of service responses. However the problems which have been identified, and reflect a dominant view of homelessness as an outcome of personal deficit (or in contemporary jargon ‘complex problems’) , focus specifically on the poor linkages and lack of continuity across service types. This is to no small extent an outcome of the administrative and management methods employed by Government. Working from a business model consistent with a fundamental belief in the superiority of the private sector, Government has pitted services against services in a competitive tendering regime, required accountabilities for expenditure with respect to specific outputs and activities that are exclusive to individual agencies, and applied conflicting conditions dependent upon the portfolio area from which funding emanates. This is well illustrated by the often documented structural, administrative, management or funding linkages between health (including mental health) services and housing programs at the national or state levels of government. It is reasonable to conclude that the manner in which Government conducts itself has directly shaped the conduct of the services themselves. This in turn has resulted in a disconnect between the methods and technologies applied and the desired outcomes.

It is this discontinuity between the ways in which governing has occurred and the knowledge of causes of homelessness which reflect the specific weight given to the arguments of individual deficiency. To demonstrate this discontinuity, there is a need to consider the primary policies, programs and tools that have been employed to manage the problem of homeless people. Examination of the Australian Government engagement as documented in this thesis revealed that the Government programs associated with housing, anti discrimination regulation, income support and ensuring access to civic rights are largely indifferent to if not actively repressive for people who are homeless.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 239

The outcome then of such rationalities, the knowledge produced and the technologies employed has been to generate consequences, whether intended or not, that fail to address the issue of homelessness itself. It is these consequences which are considered.

What are the intended and unintended consequences of such responses for the homeless and the homelessness? What alternative possibilities emerge from the spaces revealed from this analysis?

In considering the consequences of Government thinking and acting, it is essential to consider not only what and how a problem is understood, but also whether it is something upon which Government should act. It is also important to recognise that there are matters which are perceived not as a problem but rather as desirable. This means that Government’s ways of thinking and acting are intended not only to solve problems, but also to promote preferred ways of being and conduct. This includes the manner in which Government views its obligations to the population and the obligations of the population to moderate their conduct consistent with normative expectations.

In employing the term population it is taken to include not only individuals, but also organisations, interests and sectors with which the Government views a natural alliance. It is through the nature of such relationships that Government builds that it is able to provide incentives, supports or disadvantage dependent upon the extent to which this will further the achievement of Government’s perspective on desired outcomes. Those who sit outside this framework and conduct themselves inconsistent with established norms or who may actively work against them (which may include researchers who operate from a different set of rationalities, not simply people who are homeless) and are perceived as others who desirably will be brought into the fold, metaphorically speaking.

Remaining within the framework of governmentality, and of alliances, and to understand the intended and unintended consequences of thinking and acting, it is necessary to recognise those whose views may have been excluded and the types of considerations which have been largely rejected. This then demands that the rejected also be made visible and the consequences opened up for consideration.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 240

An essential consequence of prevailing rationalities, particularly the primacy of individual self reliance and independence, has been the substantive exclusion of any practical consideration of the existence of real or relative poverty within Government discourse. The term poverty is used in this discussion to mean the lack of absolute and reliable resources to acquire the essentials for requirements normally assumed (by community standards) to represent a minimum for survival such as housing, food, clothing, health care and the like. This is not to argue one method or another of calculating what constitutes the point at which one is living in poverty, but rather to suggest that when there is an obvious disparity between the known costs (e.g. median and mean rental costs) and the levels of income (e.g. income support payments) that there is a reasonable indication of the potential if not actual risk of living in poverty. The omission of poverty or a minimum standard as part of either Government thinking or technologies has had the consequential impact of rendering homeless at least some people who are reliant on such support as well as many people who survive on low wages and insecure casual or part time employment.

This is directly related then to the absence of any Australian Government legislative commitment to ensuring that the population has access to such minimum standards. This means there is no foundation upon which the population is able to reasonably expect an obligation or anticipate that the Government will employ actions needed to ensure such standards are achieved. This is inclusive of, but more than, a discourse of human rights. It is also about the extent to which the Government sees as problematic the failure of such standards to be met for at least some of the population and how such problems should be addressed.

A hallmark of successive Australian Governments has been the belief in the superiority of the private sector, as the generator of national wealth, an employer of people (enabling the population to be self reliant and independent), and as the provider of goods and services. When difficulties have arisen within the workings of the national or international economies, there has been little reticence to take action to support this sector. Further, there has been decades of promotion of business management techniques within the public sector, as well as demands upon the not for profit sector to take on similar methods of working. The consequence has been that where there has been a failure to deliver on the expected outcomes, albeit whether in terms of employment or housing for example, the outcomes of such failure have fallen heavily on the community itself. This in turn has

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 241 had the consequential effect of placing a demonstrably large number of people unable to meet the benchmark of self reliance in providing their own basic needs, including housing. What remains unclear is, given the unintended consequences of such reliance on the private sector, whether there is a continued focus on supporting that sector with the expectation that this will generate a ‘market driven’ response needed to enable people to attain the desired level of self reliance.

An Alternative Way of Seeing It would be easy to say, as has been reflected in much of the argument to date, that the problem lies in simply not enough service resources. Or, it may be equally easy to take up the cry of the need for services that work in closer alliance. However each of these arguments comes from a perspective that the fundamentals are correct, ‘we just need more and to work together better’.

What such arguments do not take up are the counter perspectives that are often viewed as a minority opinion. These are to question whether there is a need to consider whether some of these ‘givens’ upon which thinking is based and decision are made should be examined.

What might be the consequential impact, for all alliances including the private sector, and for the incidence of people who are homeless, if the problem were reoriented from the individual and refocused to the problem of homelessness in the community?

What if the problem were reconfigured to consider the problem of poverty?

What if the problem were viewed from the perspective of the relationship between the Government and its population, including the obligation to ensure and protect the human rights to which it has consented as a signatory to international agreements?

The aim then of this thesis has been to contribute to knowledge by making explicit the conditions which have enabled particular ways of thinking and responding to homelessness to be embraced and thereby also make visible alternatives. The outcome has been to create the condition of possibilities for reimagining the problematic as one of homelessness rather than of homeless people, and the way this may be pursued by reconsidering the rationalities and discourse which frames the relationship of the Australian Government to

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 242 the population. This then leads to the next consequential question. What are the conditions that are needed to transform the question from what is wrong with people who are homeless to what is wrong with homelessness in Australia?

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 243

Bibliography Abbarno, R. 1999. The Ethics of Homelessness: Philosophical Perspectives. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Adkins, B., P. Short, E. Mead, R. Owens and M. Heffernan. 2003. Tenancy Databases in the Context of Tenure Management: Risk minimisation and tenant outcomes in the private rental sector . Brisbane: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

Adler, C., A. Barry-Macaulay and J. Farrell. 2008. Homelessness and Voting Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters: Inquiry into the 2007 Federal Election . http://www.pilch.org.au/Assets/Files/2007_Cth_JSCEM_Electoral_Inquiry.pdf (accessed July 20, 2009)

Administrative Decisions (Effect on International Instruments) Bill. 1999. Bills Digest 100, 1999-2000. http:///aph.gov.au/library/pubs/hed/1999-2000/2000bd100.htm (accessed September 17, 2007).

Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. 1984. Australian Housing Policy and Intergovernmental relations, Discussion Paper 14 . Hobart: ACIR.

Alfono, W. and P. Starr. eds. 1987. The Politics of Numbers . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Allen, C. 2005. On the Social Relations of Contract Research Production: Power, Positionality and Epistemology in Housing and Urban Research . Housing Studies 20 (6): 989-1007. http://www.informaworld.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/smpp/title~db=all~content=g7273 19419 (accessed July 20, 2009).

Arat, Z. 2006. Forging A global Culture of Human Rights: Origins and Prospects of the International Bill of Rights. Human Rights Quarterly 28 (3): 416-437. http://heinonline.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/hurq28&id =1&size=2&collection=journals&index=journals/hurq (accessed July 30, 2009).

Arthurson, K. and K. Jacobs. 2003. Social Exclusion and Housing , Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Southern Research Centre. http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/projects/p40199/ (accessed July 15, 2007).

Arthurson, K. 2004. From stigma to demotion: Australian debates about housing and social exclusion. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 19(3):255-270. http://www.springerlink.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/content/x10337822v42/?p=c3f1fa1 5683b49628a098238e02fdc5b&pi=20 (accessed July 15, 2007).

Australasian Federal Convention. 1898. Official record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention: Third Session . Melbourne, Vic: Robert S. Brain, Government Printer.

Australian Commission into Poverty. 1975. Poverty in Australia . Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 244

Australian Council of Social Services. 2001. Research Compendium: Poverty and Inequality in Australia. http://www.acoss.org.au/upload/publications/papers/info%20314_poverty%20research.p df (accessed July 20, 2009).

Australian Department of Family and Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. 2008. National Homelessness Strategy . http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/housing/progserv/homelessness/nhs/Pages/default.aspx (accessed July 23, 2009).

Australian Electoral Commission. 2002. Supplementary Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters’ Inquiry into the 2001 Federal Election Response to Issues Raised during the Inquiry . http://www.aec.gov.au/pdf/committee/jscem/2001_election/sub174/sub174.pdf (accessed February 28, 2009).

Australian Electoral Commission. 2005. Research Report 6 - Electorally Engaging the Homeless. http://www.aec.gov.au/pdf/research/papers/paper6/research_paper6.pdf (accessed February 12, 2007).

Australian Electoral Commission. 2007a. A Short History of Federal Election Reform in Australia . http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/Australian_Electoral_History/history.htm (accessed June 17, 2009).

Australian Electoral Commission. 2007b. Enrolment for Persons with No Fixed Address. http://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Special_Category/Enrolment_with_no_fixed_ad dress.htm (accessed July 23, 2009).

Australian Federation of Homelessness Organisations. 2000. AFHO Briefing Paper November 2000: The National Homelessness Strategy . http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/13653/20010929- 0000/www.afho.org.au/papers/Briefing%20Papers%20&%20Info%20Sheets/BP%2011- 00%20NHS.htm (accessed August 14, 2009).

Australian Federation of Homelessness Organisations. 2001. Working towards a National Homelessness Strategy: Australian Federation of Homelessness Organisations Response . http://www.yonknet.org.au/library/contents/documents/reports_AFHOSubmissiononWor kingTowardsaNationalHomelessnessStrategyOctober20010.pdf (accessed July 23, 2009).

Australian Federation of Homelessness Organisations. n.d. Policy Platform: Mental Health and Alcohol and Other Drug Issues As Factors in Homelessness . http://www.afho.org.au/5_policy/Policy_Platform/Mental_Health.pdf (accessed March 17, 2004).

Australian Government Reference Group on Welfare Reform. 2000. Participation Support for a More Equitable Society , Final Report of the Reference Group on Welfare Reform. Canberra, Department of Families and Community Services . http://www.workplace.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/97EF2B51-F393-4FCA-AD97- 64CCCDFE5258/0/McClureReport2000_Final.pdf (accessed March 17, 2004).

Australian Government. 1998. Addendum to 3rd Report to Economic and Social Council, Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights .

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 245 http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/23a89bf90e53e6ccc125656300593189/da87cf0d8cdb8 7708025678500387c12?OpenDocument#art9 (accessed July 30, 2009).

Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. n.d. Complaints About Breaches of Human Rights. http://www.humanrights.gov.au/complaints_information/HREOCA_breaches.html (accessed June 20, 2008).

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2002. Income Status of homeless people in SAAP 1999-2001 . Canberra: AIHW. http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/7967 (accessed February 21, 2008).

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2004. Demand for SAAP assistance by homeless people 2002-03: a report from the SAAP National Data Collection http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10050 (accessed July 23, 2009).

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2006 a. Demand for SAAP accommodation by homeless people, 2003-04 http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10192 (accessed July 23, 2009).

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2006b. Demand for SAAP accommodation by homeless people 2004–05 A report from the SAAP National Data Collection . http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/aus/bulletin50/bulletin50.pdf (accessed July 23, 2009).

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2007. Community Housing Tenants . http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/aus/bulletin68/bulletin68.pdf (accessed July 20, 2008).

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2007. Homeless SAAP clients with mental health and substance use problems 2004-05. AIHW Bulletin No. 51. http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10347

Australian Law Reform Commission. 2006a. Review of the Privacy Act 1988 . http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/108/_1.html (accessed July 23, 2009).

Australian Law Reform Commission. 2006b. ALRC Report 108: For Your Information: Australian Privacy Law and Practice, Part C- Interaction, Inconsistency and Fragmentation . http://www.austlii.edu.au./au/oher/alrc/publications/reports/108/17.html#Heading175 (accessed July 10, 2009)

Australian National Dictionary Centre http://www.anu.edu.au/ANDC/res/aus_words/aewords/aewords_ab.php (accessed July 20, 2009).

Avramov, D. 1995. Homeless in the European Union , Brussels: FEANTSA.

Bailey, P. 1997. The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living: New Issues for Australian Law, Australian Journal of Human Rights 4(1). http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AJHR/1997/14.html (accessed August 3, 2009).

Baldry, E. 2001. Homelessness and the Criminal Justice System. Parity 14(10):5-8.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 246

Baldry, E., D. McDonnell, P. Maplestone and M. Peters. 2003. Ex-prisoners and accommodation: what bearing do different forms of housing have on social reintegration? Final Report No. 46 . Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. ww.ahuri.edu.au/publications/download/70068_fr (accessed March 23, 2007).

Barbour, B. 2004. Summary Report: Assisting Homeless People - The Need to Improve Their Access to Accommodation and Support Services . NSW Ombudsman, Sydney: NSW Government. http://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/publication/PDF/specialreport/Summary%20report- Assisting%20homeless%20people.pdf (Accessed 3 June 2008).

Bartholomew, T. 1999. A long way from home: family homelessness in the current welfare context . Geelong, Victoria: Salvation Army

Barnett, O. 1948. Is it safe to adopt a baby? : A social study . Melbourne: Specialty Press.

Baulderstone, J. 2006. Changing relationships between the public sector and community service organisations: insights from the South Australian case, Paper prepared for the Public Policy Network Conference 1-2 February 2006, Adelaide, South Australia. http://www.socsci.flinders.edu.au/fippm/ppnsummerconference2007/papers/Baulderston e.pdf (acessed July 20, 2009).

Bauman, Z. 2000. The Individualised Society . Malden, MA: Polity Press and Blackwell Publishers.

Bauman, Z. 2001. Community Seeking Safety in an Insecure World . United Kingdom: Polity Press.

Beavis, M. A., N. Klos, T. Carter and C. Douchant. 1997. Aboriginal peoples and homelessness , Institute of Urban Studies, University of Winnipeg. http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/Research/Homeless/F_aborig.htm (accessed August 20, 2007).

Becker, H. 1966. Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance . New York: Free Press.

Beier, A. 1985. Masterless Men. The Vagrancy Problem in England 1560-1640 . Methuen. Great Britain.

Bentham, J. n.d. Anarchical Fallacies . http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~dss4/bentham1.pdf (accessed July 30, 2009).

Berns, S. 2002. Returning to Our Roots: Australia’s New Deserving Poor In Australian Feminist Law Journal , 16, 24-52 http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=200207059;res=APAFT (accessed July 23, 2009).

Berry, M. 1988. To Buy or To Rent? The demise of a dual tenure housing policy in Australia 1945-1960. In New Houses for Old in Australia, 1945-1960, Howe, R. ed. Melbourne: Victorian Ministry of Housing.

Berry, M. 1999. Unravelling the Australian Housing Solution: The Post War Years. Housing Theory and Society 16, (3):106 – 123. http://apps.isiknowledge.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/InboundService.do?Func=Frame&p

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 247 roduct=CCC&action=retrieve&SrcApp=360&UT=000083392500002&SID=2EBM9Add4DK83i 5OoE3&Init=Yes&SrcAuth=SerialsSolutions&mode=FullRecord&customersID=SerialsSolutio ns&DestFail=http%3A%2F%2Faccess.isiproducts.com%2Fcustom_images%2Fwok_failed_au th.html (accessed July 12, 2008).

Berry, M. and J. Hall. 2001. Policy options for stimulating private sector investment in affordable housing across Australia. Stage 3 Report: Options for a Private Public Partnership to Stimulate Private Investment in Affordable Housing . Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/projects/p30063 (accessed August 10, 2009).

Bessant, J., H. Coupland, T. Dalton, L. Maher, J. Rowe and R. Watts. 2002. Heroin users, housing and social participation: attaching social exclusion through better housing . Sydney: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/projects/p30056 (accessed August 10, 2006).

Biondo, S. n.d. Homelessness and the Law Council to Homeless Persons. Parity http://www.chp.org.au/parity/articles/results.chtml?filename_num=00115 (accessed July 20, 2009).

Bisset, H., S. Campbell, and J. Goodall. 1999. Appropriate responses for homeless people whose needs require a high level and complexity of service provision: final report . Brighton, Victoria: Thomson Goodall Associates Pty Ltd,

Bitten, D. 1999. The Mismatch Argument: The Construction of Housing Orthodoxy iin Australia, Urban Studies 35(1):137-153. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/ehost/pdf?vid=3&hid=8&sid=8499058 d-7e64-4767-b3c5-ba01594652ee%40replicon103 (accessed July 15, 2007).

Blackstone, W. 1978. Commentaries on the Laws of England: in four volumes . New York: Garland.

Blasi, G. 1994. And We are Not Seen Ideological and Political Barriers to Understanding Homelessness. The American Behavioural Scientist 36(4): 563-586. ABINFORM Global http://proquest.umi.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/pqdweb?index=6&did=732642671&Src hMode=3&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1233047 820&clientId=14394&aid=1 (accessed November 15, 2008).

Blau, J. 1992. The Visible Poor: Homeless in the United States . New York: Oxford University Press.

Borowski, A. 1984. A comparison of youth unemployment in Australia and the United States. Monthly Labor Review , 107: 30-37. http://heinonline.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/month107 &id=1&size=2&collection=journals&index=journals/month (accessed November 15, 2008).

Brandeis, L. and S. Warren. 1890. The Right to Privacy, Harvard Law Review , IV (5), December 13, 1890. http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html (accessed July 20, 2009)

Brandt, R. 1992. Morality, Utilitarianism and Rights , New York: Cambridge University Press.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 248

Brennan, T. 1995. Accountability and the Administration of Social Security: Some Lessons for Brian Howe . Legal Services Bulletin 10:20-23.

Brooks, A. 1993. Paragon of Democratic Virtues - The Development of the Commonwealth. University of Tasmania Law Review 12(2):208-220. http://heinonline.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/utasman1 2&id=1&size=2&collection=journals&index=journals/utasman (accessed July 20, 2009)

Brotherhood of St Laurence. 2005. Income and Poverty 2005 . http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/income_support_and_poverty_jan05.pdf (accessed July 23, 2009).

Bull, M. 2002. If methadone is the answer, what is the question? : a genealogy of the regulation of opioids in contemporary industrialised societies . Unpublished PhD Thesis. Griffith University.

Bulmer, M., K. Bales and K. Sklar, eds. 1991. The Social Survey in Historical Perspective, 1880-1940 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burchell, D. 1997. Liberalism and Government: Political Philosophy and the Liberal Art of Rule. In Foucault the Legacy , ed. C. O’Farrell. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.

Burke, T. 1994. Homelessness in Australia Causal factors . Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.

Burke, T. 1990. Private Rental In Australia , Institute for Social Research, Swinburne University of Technology. http://www.sisr.net/publications/99burke.pdf (accessed July 20, 2009).

Burke, T. 1998. The Poverty of Homelessness In Australian Poverty Then and Now, In Australian Poverty Then and Now, ed. R Fincher and J Niewenhuysen. Victoria Melbourne: University Press.

Burke, T. and D. Hayward. 2001. Performance Indicators and Social Housing in Australia . http://www.sisr.net/publications/01burke.pdf (accessed September 9, 2009)

Burt, M. 1992. Over the Edge the Growth of Homelessness in the 1980’s . NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Butcher, J. 2006. Government, The Third Sector and the Rise of Social Capital, Third Sector Review , 12(1): n.p. http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&q=%22purchase+of+service%22+in+social+sector&met a=cr%3DcountryAU&fp=803bcfc5f369f9b (accessed March 15, 2007).

Carney, T. 2007. Welfare reform? Following the work-first’ way. Social Policy Working Paper No 7 . Melbourne: Brotherhood of St Laurence and the Centre for Public Policy Monash University. http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/Carney_welfare_reform_work-first.pdf (accessed September 9, 2009).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 249

Carr, H. And C. Hunter 2008. Managing vulnerability: homelessness law and the interplay of the social, the political and the technical. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 30(4):293-307. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ftinterface~db=all~content=a906485106~fulltext=71 3240930 (accessed July 20, 2009).

Casey, S. 2002. Snakes and ladders: women’s pathways into and out of homelessness. In SPRC Report 1/02 , ed. T. Eardley and B. Bradbury, 75-90. Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales. www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/nspc2001/NSPC%202001Papers/Casey.pdf (accessed November 15, 2008).

Casey, J. and B. Dalton. 2004. Ties that bind? The impact of contracting and project-based funding regimes on advocacy. In Australian Political Studies Association Conference. University of Adelaide, September 2004. http://www.adelaide.edu.au/apsa/docs_papers/Pub%20Pol/CaseyAPSA.pdf (accessed March 15, 2008)

Caslon Analytics. 2006. Caslon Analytics Privacy Guide: Australian Law . http://www.caslon.com.au/privacyguide3.htm (accessed July 23, 2009).

Castel, J. 1994. "Problematization" as a mode of reading history. In Foucault and the Writing of History , ed. J. Goldstein, 237-252. Oxford: Blackwell.

Castles, F. and J. Uhr. 2002. Federalism and the Welfare State: Australia . Canberra: Australian National University http://dspace.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/41804/4/Castlespaper1.pdf (accessed July 23, 2009).

Castles, F. and J. Urh. 2007. The Australian Welfare State: Has Federalism made a Difference? Australian Journal of Politics and History : 53 (1), 96-117. http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=200703812;res=APAFT (accessed July 23, 2009).

Castles, F. G. 2001. “A Farewell to Australia’s Nation State”, International Journal of Health Services , 31(3): 537-544. http://www.metapress.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/content/e6w83hyyehj57vfk/fulltext. pdf (accessed 15 September 2008).

Caulfield, J. 2000. Public Housing and Intergovernmental reform in the 1990’s. Australian Journal of Political Science , 35(1):66-222. http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=200009087;res=APAFT (accessed 15 August 2009).

Centre for Corporate Public Affairs. 2008. Relationship matters: no for profit community organisations and corporate community investment, Centre for Corporte Public Affairs, Sydney. http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/communities/pubs/Documents/relationship_matters/defaul t.htm (accessed July 20, 2009).

Centrelink. 2009, Rent Assistance Eligibility. http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/rent_eligible.htm

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 250

Chadwick, E. 1842. Report on the Sanitary Conditions of the Labouring Population and the Means of Improvement . London. http://www.deltaomega.org/ChadwickClassic.pdf (accessed 15 August 2009).

Chamberlain, C. and D. MacKenzie. 1992. Understanding contemporary homelessness: issues of definition and meaning, Australian Journal of Social Issues 27(4): 274-97.

Chamberlain, C. 1999a. Counting the Homeless, Implications for Policy Development, Occasional Paper . Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Chamberlain, C. 1999b. How many homeless in Australia? Just Policy , 17: 43-52.

Chamberlain, C. and G. Johnson. 2000. The Debate About Homelessness, Australian Journal of Social Issues 36(1)- 35-50. http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=200108102;res=APAFT (accessed March 14, 2007).

Chamberlain, C., and G. Johnson. 2001. The Debate About Homelessness Australian Journal of Social Issues , 36(1):35-50. http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=200108102;res=APAFT (accessed 135 September 2009).

Chamberlain, C. and G. Johnson. 2003. The Development of Prevention and Early Intervention Services for Homeless Youth: Intervening Successfully. RMIT: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/projects/p30156 (accessed 10 April 2007).

Chamberlain, C. and D. Mackenzie. 2003. Counting the Homeless 2001 , Australian Census Analytic Program, Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Chamberlain, C. and D. MacKenzie. 2004. Youth Homelessness: Four Policy Proposals , Final Report no 69 . Victoria: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. http://www.ahuri.edu.au/search.asp?sitekeywords=Youth+Homelessness%3A+Four+Policy +Proposals&CurrentPage=1 (accessed September 30, 2008).

Chambliss, W.J. 1964. A Sociological Analysis of the Law of Vagrancy, 12 Social Problems . [i] (1964-1965): 67-78. http://www.heinonline.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/socp rob12&id=1&size=2&collection=journals&index=journals/socprob (accessed July 23, 2009).

Chambliss, W. J. 2004. A Sociological Analysis of the Law of Vagrancy. In Social problems, law, and society , ed. A. K. Stout, R. A. Dello Buono & W. J. Chambliss, 87-100. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Charter of the United Nations. 1948. http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/ (accessed July 23, 2009).

Chatterjee, P. 1998. Community in the East. Economic and Political Weekly , 33(6):5-23/ http://www.cscsarchive.org/dataarchive/otherfiles.2007-07- 20.6659637435/bibliographic_document.2006-05- 05.1575864912/bibliographic_view?month:int=5&year:int=2008 (accessed June 5, 2008).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 251

Chesterman, C. 1988. Homes Away from Home , Supported Accommodation Assistance Program Review, Final report of the National Review of the SAAP for the Commonwealth State and Territory Welfare Ministers. Sydney: Department of Community Services and Health.

Clarke, J. and J. Newman. 1997. The managerial state: power, politics and ideology in the remaking of social welfare . London: Sage Publications.

Clarke, R. 1987. Just Another Piece of Plastic for Your Wallet: The Australia Card http://www.rogerclarke.com/DV/OzCard.html (accessed July 10, 2009).

Clarke, R. 2002. A History of Privacy in Australia . http://www.rogerclarke.com/DV/OzHistory.html (accessed July 10, 2009).

Clasen, J. ed. 1999. Comparative Social Policy Concepts, Theories and Methods, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Clowes, W. 1819. “Leigh’s View of London ” printed for Samuel Leigh, Strand

Clowes, W. 1819. London, Pauperism and Mendicity . http://www.londonancestor.com/leighs/paupers.htm (accessed November 23, 2003).

Coleman, A. 2000. Sister, it happens to me every day. Queensland: Brisbane City Council and Queensland Department of Families.

Coleman, A. 2005. Where to when the Silos Come Down: Queensland Government Responses to Homelessness , Paper present to 5 th National Housing Conference, Brisbane Queensland Department of Housing. http://www.dhw.wa.gov.au/NHC/abstracts/ColemanA.pdf (accessed 15 August 2008).

Committee of Inquiry into Homelessness. 1984. Homelessness – A capital problem: report of a Committee of Inquiry into Homelessness and Inadequate Housing in the ACT and Surrounding Regions . Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 2000. Concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and cultural Rights: Australia.03/06/93 E/C.12/1993/9 (concluding Observations/Comments . http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AILR/2000/39.html (accessed July 23, 2009).

Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Homelessness. 2001a. Working Towards a National Homelessness Strategy, A Consultation Paper , Department of Families and Community Serviceshttp://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/vIA/nat_homeless/$file/total.pdf (accessed 10 September 2008).

Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Homelessness. 2001b. Working Towards a National Homelessness Strategy, Response to consultations . Department of Family and Community Services, Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service. http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/housing/pubs/homelessness/response_consultations/Docu ments/nhs_040324.pdf (accessed July 23, 2009).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 252

Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Homelessness. 2003. Working Towards a National Homelessness Strategy . Canberra: Dept. of Family and Community Services.

Commonwealth Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. 2006. Government Response to the Privacy Commissioner’s Report: Getting in on the Act: The Review of the Private Sector Provisions of the Privacy Act 1988 . http://www.pmc.gov.au/privacy/docs/government_response_pcr.rtf (accessed July 23, 2009).

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902

Commonwealth Franchise Act, 1902. No 8. www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/gtranscripts/cth5i_doc_1203.pdf (accessed January 15, 2008).

Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, 2001. Human Rights and Poverty Eradication. A Talisman for the Commonwealth. http://infochangeindia.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=6000 (accessed July 14, 2007)

Commonwealth of Australia. Attorney General’s Department. 2004. Australia’s National Framework for Human Rights, National Action Plan , Canberra: Commonwealth Australia. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/plan_actions/docs/Australia-NHRAP2004.pdf (accessed July 27, 2009).

Commonwealth of Australia, House of Representatives. 1973. 2nd Reading Speech, 21 November. http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/law/rights19732ndR.htm (accessed July 23, 2008).

Commonwealth of Australia. House of Representatives. 1981. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance (Hansard). http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=;db=;group=;holdingTy pe=;id=;orderBy=;page=;query=Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansards%20((SpeakerId%3AEE4))%2 0Date%3A08%2F06%2F1981%20%3E%3E%2010%2F06%2F1981;querytype=;rec=6;resCoun t=Default (accessed July 23, 2008).

Commonwealth of Australia. House of Representatives. http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?id=401478&table=HANSARDR (accessed July 23, 2009).

Commonwealth of Australia. House of Representatives. 1983. Record of Proceedings (Hansard). http://parlinforweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspex?id=401478&table=HANSARD R (accessed July 23, 2009).

Commonwealth of Australia. House of Representatives. 1986. Record of Proceedings (Hansard). http://parloinfowb.aph.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?id=3865 accessed May 15, 2008). Commonwealth of Australia House of Representatives 1988, Parliamentary Debates, 1 November (Hansard). http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=;group=;holdin gType=;id=;orderBy=date-

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 253 eLast;page=0;query=Content%3A%22Privacy%20Bill%22%20Date%3A01%2F01%2F1988%2 0%3E%3E%2030%2F12%2F1988%20Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansards,comSen,comJoint;quer ytype=;rec=14;resCount=Default (accessed July 10, 2009).

Commonwealth of Australia, House of Representatives. 1997. Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance) Bill, Record of Proceedings (Hansards). http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=;db=;group=;holdingTy pe=;id=;orderBy=;page=;query=Homeless%20Youth%20Allowance%20Dataset%3Ahansardr ,hansards%20((SpeakerId%3AZJ6)%20|%20(QuestionerId_Phrase%3AZJ6)%20|%20(Respon derId_Phrase%3AZJ6))%20Date%3A01%2F11%2F1997%20%3E%3E%2030%2F11%2F1997;q uerytype=;rec=0;resCount=Default (accessed August 24, 2007). Commonwealth of Australia. House of Representatives, 2000a. Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000. Second Reading. Speech (Hansard). Tuesday, 7 November. http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansardr/2000-11- 07/0077/hansard_frag.pdf%3BfileType%3Dapplication%2Fpdf. (accessed July 10, 2009).

Commonwealth of Australia. House of Representatives, 2000b, Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000. Second Reading. Speech(Hansard).. 8 November http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansardr/2000-11- 08/0008/hansard_frag.pdf%3BfileType=application%2Fpdf. (accessed July 10, 2009).

Commonwealth of Australia, Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, 2002. Conduct of the 2001 Election , Department of the Parliamentary Library. http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/australian_electoral_system/jscem/election_enquiries.ht m#2001_conduct (accessed July 23, 2009).

Commonwealth of Australia Legal and Constitutional References Committee. 1998. Privacy and the Private Sector. Leghttp://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=;group=;hol dingType=;id=;orderBy=customrank;page=0;query=Content%3A%22Privacy%20and%20the %20Private%20Sector%22%20Date%3A27%2F07%2F1998%20%3E%3E%2029%2F07%2F29 98%20Dataset%3AcomSen;querytype=;rec=3;resCount=Default (accessed 22 July 2009).

Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 No. 8 of 1902 www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/cth5i_doc_1902.pdf (accessed March 12, 2007). Commonwealth of Australia. 1998. Implementation of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Third Periodic Report, Addendum . http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,CESCR,,AUS,3f6caa017,0.html *(accessed July 25, 2009).

Commonwealth of Australia, Senate. 1986. Record of proceedings (Hansard). from http://parlinfoweb.aph.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?id=3865 (accessed 15 May 2008).

Commonwealth of Australia. Senate. 1987. Ministerial Statement International Year of Shelter for the Homeless (Hansards) 5 November. http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=;group=;holdin gType=;id=;orderBy=customrank;page=0;query=INTERNATIONAL%20year%20of%20Shelter %20for%20the%20Homeless;querytype=;rec=2;resCount=Default (accessed 28 October 2008).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 254

Commonwealth of Australia, Senate. 2003. Parliamentary Debates (Hansards ). http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansards/2003-10- 29/0131/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf (accessed 23 April 2008)

Community Affairs References Committee. 2004. A Hand up Not a Hand Out: Renewing the Fight Against Poverty . Canberra: Senate Printing Unit Parliament House, http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002- 04/poverty/report/ (accessed July 23, 2009).

Community Housing Federation of Australia, 2009. Achieving a viable and sustainable community housing sector: an industry perspective. ACT. http://chfa.com.au/Downloads/A%20Viable%20and%20Sustainable%20Community%20Ho using%20Sector%20CHFA%20June2009.pdf (accessed July 23, 2009).

Conway, J. 2000. Housing Policy . United Kingdom: Goldridge Press.

Coopers Lybrand WD Scott. 1985. Study into homelessness and inadequate housing, volume one. Commonwealth Department of Housing and Construction: Australian Government Printing Service.

Corbet, S. 1999. Public Health and Social Justice in the Age of Chadwick Britain 1800- 1854. Health Promotion International 14(4):381-382. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Cowan, D., S. Halliday and C. Hunter. 2006. Adjudicating the Implementation of Homelessness Law: The Promise of Socio Legal Studies, Housing Studies , 21(3): 381-400. http://www.informaworld.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/smpp/content~db=all~content=a 745945585 (accessed July 20, 2009).

Cowen, Z. 1969. The Private Man , The Boyer Lectures, Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Council of Australian Governments. 1995. Council of Australian Governments meeting, 11 April 1995 Communique . Canberra. http://www.coag.gov.au/coag_meeting_outcomes/1995-04-11/index.cfm (accessed 10 June 2008).

Council to Homeless Persons. 2001. Pathways: Causes and Consequences, Problematic Drug Use and Homelessness, Parity 14(8):13-14.

Crane, P. and J. Brannock. 1996. Homelessness Among Young People in Australia . Hobart, Tasmania: National Clearinghouse for Youth Studies. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/4/1/crane%26brannock.pdf (accessed 10 September 2008).

Crinall, K. 2001. Representing the invisible: Images of Women Among the Faces of Homelessness. Parity 14 (10):7-9. Parity.http:www.chp.org.au/parity/articles/results.chtml?filename_num=0013 (accessed June 5, 2008).

Crinall, K. 2006a. Destitute discourses: the art of orchestrating fear and fantasy in photographs of homeless people. Arena Journal , 27: 61-80.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 255

Crinall, K. 2006b. Governing Inequality: Poverty before the Australian Welfare State. In Thinking About Poverty 3rd edition, ed. K. Serr. Annadale, NSW: Federation Press.

Culhane, D. 1996. “The Homeless Shelter and the Nineteenth Century Poorhouse: Comparing Notes from Two Eras of Indoor Relief”. In Myths About the Powerless, Contesting Social Inequalities , ed. M B. Lykes, R. Liem and M Morris. Pennsylvania: Temple University Press.

Cullen, D. 2003. “Shame Files – ISSUES”, Melbourne Age , February 10, 2003.

Curtain, R. 2000. Towards Greater Transparency in Policy-making. Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration (96):1-4. http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=20003561;res=AGISPT (accessed July 23, 2009).

Curtis. B. 2002. Foucault on Governmentality and Population: the Impossible Discovery. Canadian Journal of Sociology 27(4):505-533.http://www.cjsonline.ca/articles/foucult.html (accessed 27 November 2005).

Dail, P., C. Mack, I. Shelley and S. Fitzgerald. 2000. Methodologies for examining Homelessness and their Application to a Mandated Statewide Study. Policy Studies Journal 28(2):411-427. http://proquest.umi.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/pqdweb?index=8&did=60914595&Srch Mode=3&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=12535106 09&clientId=14394&aid=1 (accessed 27 November 2005).

Dalton, T. 1987. IYSH – yet another international year, ASW Impact , March 1987:6-8.

Dandekar, N. 1999. Social Policies, Principles, and Homelessness. In The ethics of homelessness: philosophical perspectives , ed. G. J Abbarno. Amsterdam: Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.

Daniels, D. 1995. Background Papers No 3 Social Security Payments 2: The unemployed, the sick and those in special circumstances 1945-1995 . http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=;db=;group=;holdingTy pe=;id=;orderBy=;page=;query=Source%3A%22BACKGROUND%20PAPERS%20(SOCIAL%20P OLICY%20GROUP)%22;querytype=;rec=8;resCount= (accessed August 3, 2009).

Darcy, M. 1999. The discourse of community and the reinvention of social housing policy in Australia, Urban Studies 36(1):13-27. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/ehost/pdf?vid=3&hid=3&sid=226c25e 9-39e8-4049-9b44-498a17dcd20a%40sessionmgr4 (accessed February7, 2005).

Darcy, M. and B. Randolf. 2000. Strategic Directions for Housing Assistance, Issues Paper 2, Campbelltown, NSW: Urban Frontiers Program, University of Western Sydney.

Dario, G. 2005. Electorally Engaging the Homeless, Research Report Number 5. Australian Electoral Commission. http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/publications/Strategy_Research_Analysis/paper6/inde x.htm (accessed 20th July 2009).

Davidson, A. 1997. From subject to citizen: Australian citizenship in the twentieth century . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 256

Davies, S. 1990. Vagrancy and the Victorians: the social construction of the vagrant in Melbourne, 1880-1907 . University of Melbourne, http://eprint.infodiv.unimleb.ed.au.archive/00002011 (accessed 18 May 2008).

Davies, S. 1996. On Campaigns of Opposition to ID Card Schemes, Privacy International http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347- 61882&als[theme]=National%20ID%20Cards&headline=On%20Campaigns%20of%20Oppos ition%20to%20ID%20Card%20Schemes (accessed July 10, 2009)

Dean, M. 1994. Critical and Effective Histories. Foucault's Methods and Historical Sociology. London, Routledge.

Dean, M. 1999. Governmentality: power and rule in modern society . London, Sage.

Dean, M. 2002. Liberal government and authoritarianism. Economy and Society 31 (1): 37- 61. http://pdfserve.informaworld.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/762776_907954723_7137667 10.pdf (accessed July 10, 2007).

Dean, M. and B.Hindess ed. 1998. Governing Australia . Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Dearne, K. 2003. Estate agent blacklists not covered by law. Australian September 2.

Debates of the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory 1993. Hansard, 15 September 1993.

Demographia, 2nd Annual Demographia International Housing Survey 2006, http://www.landcom.com.au/downloads/File/Demographia%20Survey%202006.pdf (accessed July 23, 2009).

Department of Families and Community Services. 2000. National homelessness Strategy: a Discussion Paper . Canberra, Dept of Families and Community Services, http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/AboutFaCS/Programs/house- homelessnessstrategy.htm (accessed 10 September 2008).

Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. 2008. Which Way Home, A new Approach to Homelessness, Canberra. http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/housing/new_approach_stage1.htm (accessed July 20, 2009).

Department of Housing. 2003. The History of Public Housing in New South Wales , NSW Government.

Department of Housing and Regional Development. 1993. SAAP: Strategic Directions , Canberra.

Department of Social Security. 1971. History of Pensions and Other Benefits in Australia, Canberra, Australian Bureau of Statistics. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/8e72c45 26a94aaedca2569de00296978!OpenDocument (accessed 24 August 2008).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 257

Department of Social Security. 1978. A Place of Dignity Report of a Survey of Homeless People and Homeless Person Assistance Centres , Canberra; AGPS.

Department of Social Security. 1982. Review of crisis accommodation programs: discussion paper . Canberra; C.J. Thompson, Commonwealth Government Printer

Department of Social Security. 1993. Income Support and Housing Assistance, Submission to the Inquiry into Public Housing by the Industry Commission . Canberra: AGPS

Department of Social Security. 1994. Reaching Out, Directions for further reform of income support an related programs to assist homeless people. Discussion paper on arrangements for meeting the needs of homeless people. Policy Discussion Paper No.5 June 1994 http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/about/publicationsarticles/research/dss/Policy_Discussion_Seri es/Documents/no.5.pdf (accessed July 20, 2009).

De Tocqueville, A. 1986. Memoir on Pauperism . http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/1986/april/Sa10058.htm (accessed November, 23, 2003).

Dickens, C. 1854. Hard Times , eBooks@Adelaide The University of Adelaide Library http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/d/dickens/charles/d54ht/

Disney, J. 2004. Proceedings of National Summit on Housing Affordability . Canberra: Housing Industry Association.

Dodson, J. 2006. Rolling the State?: Government, Neoliberalism and Housing Assistance in Four Advanced Economies . Queensland: Urban Research Program Griffith University. http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/48576/urp-rp07-dodson-2006.pdf (accessed 14 July 2009).

Doherty, J. 2000. Housing: linking theory and practice. In What Works? Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Public Services , ed. H. T. O. Davies, Nutley, S. and Smith, P. C. Bristol, Policy Press.

Donnision, D. 1975. The Politics of Housing R.O. Smee Memorial Lecture, Building Science Forum June 10th 1975 – From Building Science Forum of Australia NSW Division, Sydney.

Donzelot, J. 1979. The Policing of Families . London: Hutchinson.

Dow, G. 1999. Economic Rationalism Versus the Community: Reflections on Social Democracy and State Capacity. Social Issues , 34(3):209-229 http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=200003666;res=APAFT (accessed August 3, 2008).

Drake, M, B. Rope and R. Walmsley. 1984. Homelessness – a capital problem’ Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Homelessness and Inadequate housing in the Act and Surrounding regions , Australia Committee of Inquiry into Homelessness, Canberra, Australian Government Printing Service.

Doyle, R. 1999. The intrusion of market principles in human services provision, Policy, Organisation and Society , 17: 51-67. ISSN: 1034-9952 (accessed August 3, 2008).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 258

Dunstan, R. 1997. Delivering On The Promise of Human Rights -- Where Are We And Where Do We Need To Be, Australian Journal of Human Rights 4(1). http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AJHR/1997/13.html (accessed August 3, 2009).

Dworkin, J. 1977. Taking Rights Seriously . Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press.

Dworkin, J. and R. Bomer. 2008. What We All (Supposedly) Know about the Poor: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Ruby Payne, English Education 40(2):101-121. http://proquest.umi.com.ezp02.library.qut.edu.au/pqdweb?index=9&did=1419315251&Sr chMode=3&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=121273 0004&clientId=14394&aid=1pg. 101 (accessed July 23, 2009).

Dwyer, R. 2001. Pathways: Causes and consequences. Problematic Drug Use and Homelessness. Parity , 14, (8):13-14.

East London Observer. 1866. Pauperism in Bethnal-green, March 31. http://www.mernick.org.uk/thhol/pauperbg.html (accessed July 23, 2009).

Economic and Social Council. 2000. Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Australia . http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/693c56f3d2694130c12569580039a1a2?Open document (accessed 4 August 2009) .

Econsult, and C. Neil, 1994. SAAP and other Government Programs , AGPS, Canberra.

Electoral Act 1902 (Cth)

Electoral Act 1918 (Cth)

Electoral Legislation Amendment Act 1983 (Cth)

Electoral and Referendum Amendment Act 1989 (Cth) N0 24 of 1990.

Electoral Office Act 1924 (Cth)

Ellis, R. and R. Fopp. 1995. Inquiring into youth homelessness [online]. Youth Studies Australia , 14 (1), 36-40. http://search.informit.com.au.ezp02.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=950605623;res=APAFT (accessed July 23, 2009).

Erebus Consulting Partners. 2004. National Evaluation of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP IV) Final Report A Report to the SAAP National Coordination and Development Committee. Canberra: Department of Family and Community Services.

Ewald, F. 1990. Norms, Discipline and the Law, Representations 30, Spring 1990 University of California. http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/pdfplus/2928449.pdf (accessed 21 July 2009).

Faubion, J. ed. 2002. Michel Foucault : Power . Camberwell, Australia: Penguin Books.

Felice, W. 1996. The Case for Collective Human rights: The Reality of Group Suffering. Ethics and International Affairs 10(1):48-61.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 259 http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/cgi- bin/fulltext/119955503/PDFSTART (accessed July 23, 2009).

Fitzgerald, R. 1995. Taking Action on Youth homelessness. Papers Presented to the Public Forum Sydney. Darlinghurst, NSW: Australian Centre for Equity through Education.

Fitzgerald, S. 1998. Something Borrowed and Something New? Welfare Reform and Social Science Policy Studies Journal, 26(2): 333-340. http://proquest.umi.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/pqdweb?index=10&did=34812844&Src hMode=3&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1248863 343&clientId=14394&aid=1 (accessed July 20, 2009).

Fitzpatrick, S. 2005. Explaining Homelessness: A Critical Realist Perspective, Housing Theory and Society 22 (1):1-17.

Flatau, P. and K. Zaretzky, M. Brady, Y. Haigh and R. Martin. 2008. The cost-effectiveness of homelessness programs: a first assessment, AHURI Final Report No.119 . W.A.: AHURI http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/search.asp?ShowSearch=False&Search=Properties& Keywords=&Year=&Centre=&Search-Title=&Search-Summary=&Search-Author (accessed July 20, 2009).

Foley, A. 1996. CSHA Reforms and Homelessness in Conference Proceedings Homelessness in the lucky country 1996-2000: how will we meet the challenge? September 1996 Melbourne / National Conference on Homelessness: 435-442.

Fopp, R. 1995. The Causes of Homelessness: Clearing the Path. Shelter -National Housing Action , 11(1), 11-16.

Fopp, R. 1996a. No Where to Go: An Analysis of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program, Australian Journal of Social Issues 31(2):209-221. http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=970100719;res=APAFT (accessed July 23, 2009).

Fopp, R. 1996b. SAAP and Homelessness – Clearing a Way Through Possible Consequences , Paper to National Housing Conference, Melbourne: 199-219.

Fopp, R. 2002. Increasing the potential for gaze, surveillance and normalisation: the transformation of an Australian policy for people who are homeless. In Surveillance and Society Issues , 1(1):48-65. http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles1/homeless.pdf (accessed July 23, 2009).

Fopp, R. 2007. Pathways, careers and revolving doors: an exploration of the social function of metaphors in homelessness discourse and research, Presented the Second Australasian Housing Researchers Conference, 202—June 2007.

Fopp, N. 2008. Social Constructionism and Housing Studies A Critical Reflection, Urban and Policy Research 26(2): 159-175 http://pdfserve.informaworld.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/763694_731335482_7930786 84.pdf (accessed July 30, 2009).

Fopp, R. 2009. Metaphors in Homelessness Discourse and Research: Exploring “Pathways”, “Careers” and “Safety Nets. Housing, Theory and Society, 1651-2278. http://www.informaworld.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/smpp/ftinterface~db=jour~conte

Forell, S., E. McCarron and L. Schetzer. 2005. No home, no justice? The legal needs of homeless people in NSW , Sydney: Law and Justice Foundation of NSW, http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/report/homeless/BD5A469E92C0D340CA257076000D4 C3A.html (accessed July 20, 2009).

Foucault, M. 1970. The Order of Things: An archaeology of human sciences. London: Tavistock Publications.

Foucault, M. 1975. The birth of the clinic: an archaeology of medical perception . New York: Vintage Books.

Foucault, M. 1976. The History of Sexuality. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers .

Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: the birth of the prison , Allen Lane, London

Foucault, M. 1978. Governmentality, In Michel Foucault essential works of Foucault 1954- 1984, ed. J. Faubion, 201-222. England: Penguin Press.

Foucault, M. 1978. Governmentality. In The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality , ed. G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller: 87-104. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Foucault, M. 1980. “The Politics of Health in the Eighteenth Century,” In Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977 , ed .C. Gordon, 166-182. New York: Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. 1982. The Subject and Power In Michel Foucault essential works of Foucault 1954-1984 vol 3, ed. J Caubion,326-364. England: Penguin Books.

Foucault, M. 1982. The Subject and Power. In Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics , ed. and P. Rabinow: 208-226. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

Foucault, M. 1994. Truth and Power, In Michel Foucault essential works of Foucault 1954- 1984 vol 3 ed. J Faubion. London, Penguin Books.

Franchise Act 1902 (Cth)

Freeden, M. 1991. Rights , England: Open University Press.

Galligan, B. and W. Roberts. 2004. Australian citizenship. Carlton, Victoria: Melbourne University Press.

Gans, H. 1995. The War Against the Poor: The Underclass and Antipoverty Policy . New York: Basic Books.

Gans, H. 1990. Deconstructing the Underclass The Term’s Dangers as a Planning Concept, APA Journal Summer 1990: 271-277.

Garland, D. 1996. The limits of the sovereign state: strategies of crime control in contemporary society, British Journal of Criminology 36(4):445-472.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 261 handle=hein.journals/bjcrim36&id=1&size=2&collection=journals&index=journals/bjcrim (accessed March 13, 2005).

Garland, D. 1997. 'Governmentality' and the Problem of Crime: Foucault, Criminology, Sociology. Theoretical Criminology 1 (2):173-214.

Gleeson, C., K. Gummow, H. Hayne, and J. Crennan. 2007. Roach v Electoral Commissioner [2007] HCA 43 (26 September 2007). http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2007/43.html (accessed July 20, 2009)

Goldie, C. 2003. Homelessness: A Rights-based Agenda Fostering legal and social activism . Newsletter of the Australian Federation of Homelessness Organisations, March 2003.

Government Printer Sydney, November 1854, In Labor Discipline and the Industrial School System in Sydney 1870-1900, Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society , l75(1) 51- 64. www.uow.edu.au/arts/research/ejournal/archives/jun04/ksarticle.pdf (accessed 23 November 2005).

Goldie, C. 2003. Homelessness: A Rights Based Agenda Fostering legal and social activism, Alternative Law Journal 28(3):132-135. http://www.gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/Publications/docs/pubs/rightsVersusWelfare.pdf (accessed August 19, 2007).

Gowdie, C. 1991. Economy on the Brink of recovery but Jobs Remain Grim . Melbourne Age. December 28.

Graham, C. and D. Neu. 2004. Standarized testing and the construction of governable persons, Journal of Curriculum Studies 36(2):295-319. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=106&sid=f019f9 ec-4760-436a-89c2-317eb32d8343%40sessionmgr11 (accessed July 23, 2009).

Graycar, A. 1983. Retreat from the Welfare State, Australian Social Policy in the 1980’s . Sydney: George Allen and Unwin.

Grimshaw, J. 2002 . Homelessness and Crime http://www.fathom.com/feature/121810/index.html (accessed 21 July 2009)

Gronda, H.2006. Cold Comfort Hotel, Arena Magazine 84: 11-12.

Grotious, H. 2001. On the Law of War and Peace. Translated by De Jure Belli ac Pacis. Ontario, Ca: Baroche Books http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/grotius/Law2.pdf (accessed 20 July 2009).

Gruen, F. 1987. Housing Australians: Puzzles, Politics, But No Solutions, Discussion paper No 175. Centre for Economic Policy Research, Canberra: ANU.

Guttman, D. 2007. Before the High Court Roach v Commonwealth: Is the Blanket Disenfranchisement of Convicted Prisoners Unconstitutional?” Sydney Law Review 29(2):297-319. http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=200707539 ;res=APAFT (accessed 20 th July 2009)

Hacking I. 1990. The Taming of Chance . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 262

Hacking, I. 1981. How Should we do the History of Statistics? In The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality ed. G. IBurchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller: 15-26.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Haggard, R. 1998. A review of Alexis De Tocqueville, Memoir on Pauperism, Chicago, 1997, and Robert Humphreys, Sin, Organized Charity, and the Poor Law in Victorian England, In Essays in History 40. http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH40/haggar40.html (accessed November 23, 2003).

Hallebone, E. 1997. Homelessness and Marginality in Australia, In International and critical Perspectives on Homelessness , ed. M Huth T Wright, 69-103.. Connecticut: Praeger.

Hambrick, R. and D. Rog. 2000. The Pursuit of Co-ordination: The Organisational Dimension in the Response to Homelessness. Policy Studies Journal 28(2):365-364. index=12&did=60914580&SrchMode=3&sid=3&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=30 9&VName=PQD&TS=1253581346&clientId=14394&aid=1 (accessed November 23, 2000).

Hancock, L. and T. Burke. 1983. Youth Housing Policy , Australian Housing Research Council. Canberra,: Australian Government Printing Service.

Handler, J. and Y. Hassenfeld. 2007. Blaming Welfare Ignore Poverty and Inequality, Yale University Press, new Haven Ct –ebook http://reader.eblib.com.au.ezp02.library.qut.edu.au/Reader.aspx?p=321152&o=96&u=LY4 AlNdu5d2ZsDIg80PiwA==&t=1220945988&h=038bd8886860022086a7284e6c897cbd17c0d 758&s=1086081&ut=245&pg=1&r=img#

Harding, A., B. Phillips and S. Kelly. 2004. Trends in Housing Stress, Paper presented at the National summit on Housing affordability 28 June 2006, Canberra: National Center for Social and Economic Modelling, University Canberra.

Harrison, B. and P. Lynch. 2002. Giving Voice to the Voiceless, Submission to the Inquiry into the 2001 Federal Election . Homeless Persons’ Legal Clinic. Melbourne: PILCH.

Hart, H.L.A. 1958. Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals. Harvard Law Review 71(4):593-629. http://heinonline.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/hlr71&id= 1&size=2&collection=journals&index=journals/hlr (accessed July 23, 2009).

Hartman, A. 1992. In Search of Subjugated Knowledge, Social Work , 37 (6) Academic Research Library: 483-484. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/ehost/pdf?vid=3&hid=107&sid=bea4d fae-66db-4adc-8aef-c8a36fa52d45%40sessionmgr110 (accessed July 20, 2009).

Hartootunian, H.D. 1988. Foucault Genealogy History: The Pursuit of Others. In After Foucault, Humanistic Knowledge Post Modern Challenges , ed. J Aramac. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Hayward, D. 1996. ‘The Reluctant Landlords: The History of Public Housing in Australia’ in Urban Policy and Planning 4(1):5-35.

Healy, K. 1992. No Fixed Abode . NSW: Spinney Press.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 263

Heard, A. 1997. Human rights: Chimeras in Sheeps’ Clothing? The Challenges of Utilitarianism and relativism . http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/intro.html (accessed 30 July 2009).

Heater, D. 1990. Citizenship: The Civic Ideal in World History, Politics and Education . U.K.: Longman.

Heater, D. 2003. A Brief History of Citizenship. New York: NYU Press.

Heater, D. 2004. Citizenship: the civic ideal in world history, politics and education . Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Heffernan, R. 2000. Tenants pay for black list queries. Courier Mail , April 28.

Heinrich, C. and L. Lynn. 2001. Means and Ends: A Comparative Study of Empirical Methods for Investigating Governance and Performance. Journal of Public Administration and Research, 11(1): 109-138 index=1&did=68920897&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309 &VName=PQD&TS=1253582528&clientId=14394 (accessed March 23, 2006).

Henderson, R. 1975. Poverty in Australia, Australian Government Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. Volume 1. Canberra: AGPS.

Herrman, H., P. McGorry, P. BennettR. van Reil, and B. Singh, B. 1989., Prevalence of Severe Mental Disorders in Disaffiliated and Homeless People in Inner Melbourne . The American Journal of Psychiatry , 146(9: 1179-84. index=37&did=1776614&SrchMode=3&sid=4&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309 &VName=PQD&TS=1253583026&clientId=14394&aid=5 (accessed March 23, 2006).

Higginbotham, P. 2007. History of the Workhouse in Britain . http://www.workhouses.org.uk/index.html?poorlaws/poorlaws.shtml (accessed October 2, 2003).

Higginbotham, P. 2000. Poor Laws . http://www.workhouses.org.uk/poorlaws (accessed October 2, 2003).

Higginbotham, P. 2001. Transcription: The 1601 Act for the Relief of the Poor . http://users.ox.ac.uk/~peter/workhouse/poorlaws/1601act.shtml (accessed October 2, 2003).

Hill, L. 2000. ‘Precarious Persons: Disenfranchising Australian Prisoners’, Australian Journal of Social Issues 35(3): 203-213 http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=200102819;res=APAFT (accessed July 20, 2009)

Himmelfarb, G. n.d. Welfare Charity: Lessons from Victorian England. Http://www.acton.org.publica/books/transformwelfare/himmelfarb.html (accessed May 1, 2004).

Hindess, B. 1996. Discourses of Power: From Hobbes to Foucault . Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 264

Hindess, B. 2001. Liberal Government of Unfreedom, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 26(2) Apr-June 2001. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3225/is_2_26/ai_n28851291/ (accessed April 28, 2007).

Hindess, B. 2002. Neoliberal Citizenship, Citizenship Studies 6(2):127-143, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. http://www.informaworld.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/smpp/ftinterface~db=all~content =a713658831~fulltext=713240930 (accessed June 15, 2008).

Hindess, B. 2005. Politics as government: Michel Foucault’s Analysis of Political Reason. Alternatives 30 (4): 389-413. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/ehost/pdf?vid=3&hid=5&sid=0358100 4-d556-48f0-8149-f6146b5d50a5%40sessionmgr11 (accessed June 15, 2008).

Hindess, B. 2005. Politics as Government: Michel Foucault’s Analysis of Political Reason, Alternatives 30: 389-413. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/ehost/pdf?vid=3&hid=3&sid=f1ad04f8 -af42-438b-a3c1-675e0d7962fb%40sessionmgr110 (accessed July 30, 2009).

Hodder, T., M. Teesson and N. Buhrich. 1998. Down and Out in Sydney: Prevalence of Mental Disorders, Disability and Health Service Use Among Homeless People in Inner Sydney. (accessed August 2004),

Hoffman, J. 2004. Citizenship beyond the state . London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Hogan, D. 1997. The Logic of Protection, Citizenship Justice and the Political Community, in Kennedy, K. Citizenship education and the modern state , pp 28-42 Falmer Press http://books.google.com.au/books?id=rcM9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=Bodin+on +citizenship&source=bl&ots=DO7ip8BSyk&sig=ret7Vk874y7whmLHH1pDdXksxus&hl=en&ei =P6QCSqr3IaXe6AOUkMmTAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA30,M1 (accessed 21 July 2009).

Hollingworth, P. 1981 . Australians in Poverty . Melbourne, Victoria: Thomas Nelson Australia.

Homelessness Task Force 2008. The Road Home A National Approach to Reducing Homelessness. Canberra, Department of Families, Housing Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, http://www.facsia.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/housing/white_paper_on_homelessne ss.htm (accessed July 20, 2009)

Hopper, K. and J. Hamburg, J. 1986. The Making of Americas Homeless from Skid Row to New Port 1945-1984. In Cultural Perspectives on Housing ed. R.G. Bratt and A. N.Myerson, 12-40. Philadelphia: Temple University Press:.

Hopper, K., E. Sussex, and S. Conniver. 1985. Economics of Make Shift: Deinstitutionation and homelessness in New York City, Urban Anthropology , 14:183-236.

Horin, A. 2008. Homeless Youth a Nation’s Shame, Sydney Morning Herald , 8th April.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 265

Horn, M. 1996. Families and Homelessness – Prospects and Policies for the 21 st Century – Reasons for Becoming Homeless , paper presented that the 5 th Australian Family Research Conference, November 1996. http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/afrcpapers/horn.html (accessed July 23, 2009).

Horn, M. 1998. Expectations for the future of Homeless Youth, Youth Studies Australia , 17(3): 12-19. http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=990302296;res=APAFT (accessed October 2, 2008).

Horn, M. 2002. “Increasing Homelessness: Evidence of housing market failure in Australia” Just Policy 25: 26-31. http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=200204286;res=APAFT (accessed July 23, 2009).

Horn, M. and M. Cooke. 2001. Hanover Family Outcomes Study First Report, Profile of participating families and their experiences of homelessness, Victoria: Hanover Welfare Services.

Horton, N. 1996. Overview of Homelessness , Proceedings of National Conference on Homelessness, Melbourne: 162-167.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Community Affairs. 1994. Inquiry into aspects of youth homelessness: submissions authorised for publication . Canberra, Standing Committee on Community Affairs. (accessed July 20, 2007).

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs. 1998. What Price Competition? A Report on the Competitive Tendering of Welfare Service Delivery. http://www.aph.gov.au/House/committee/fca/ctreport.pdf (access July 20, 2009).

Housing Assistance Act 1996 (Clth)

Housing NSW. 2006. Eligibility for Public Housing. http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/Forms+Policies+and+Fact+Sheets/Policies/Eligibility+for+P ublic+Housing+-+ALL0030A.htm (accessed September 9, 2009).

Howe. R. 1994. Housing and the Church A vision and Challenge , The Inaugrural F Oswarld Barnett Oration, Ecumenical Housing Inc, Victoria. http://www.sisr.net/events/docs/obo1.pdf (accessed February 28, 2003).

Howse, C. 2000.Towards a dealing Just and Kind. Alternative Law Journal 25(3):108-111. http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=200100064;res=APAFT (accessed July 20, 2009).

Howard, E. 1902. Garden Cities of Tomorrow . London http://www.library.cornell.edu/Reps/DOCS/howard.htm (accessed July 20, 2009).

Hulse, K. 2002. Rent assistance: Time for a Policy Review. Just Policy , 25, 13-25. http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=200204285;res=APAFT (accessed 18 September 2004)

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth)

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 266

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. 1989. Our homeless children: report of the inquiry into homeless children. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Humphreys, Robert. 1999. No Fixed Abode. A History of Responses to the Roofless and the Rootless in Britain. McMillan Press: Great Britain.

Hunt, A. 1994, Governing the Socio-Legal Project: Or What Do Research Councils Do? Journal of Law and Society 21(4) :520-528. http://heinonline.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jlsocty21& id=1&size=2&collection=journals&index=journals/jlsocty (accessed July 23, 2009).

Hunt, L. 2005. The Origins of Human Rights in the Eighteenth Century: Toward a Post Foucauldian History of Parenthood . www.isop.ucla.edu/cms/files/global1.pdf (accessed August 3, 2009).

Huth, M. and T. Wright, ed. 1997. International Critical Perspectives on Homelessness. West Port Connecticut: Praeger.

Hutson, S. and D. Clapham. 1999. Homelessness, Public Policies and Private Troubles . London: Cassell.

Hyde, J. March 2006. The Role of the Private market in Delivering a Social Housing Solution to Homelessness , Presented to 4 th National Homelessness Conference 1-3 March 2006, Sydney.

Incerti, K. and L. Matthews. 2003. Persons Bricks Homes: Partnerships to realising Housing as Human right, presented to AASW National Conference Cooperating for Social Justice, October 29. 2003.

Income Security Sub Committee of the Standing Committee of Community Services and Income Security Administrators . 1996. Report on the Evaluation of the Homeless Youth Protocol . Canberra, Health and Community Services Ministerial Secretariat (accessed July 20, 2007).

Industry Commission. 1993. Public Housing, Volume 1 Report Number 34 . Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.

International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. 1966. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm

Jacobs, K. and K. Arthurson. 2003. Developing effective housing management policies to address problems of anti-social behaviour Final Report No. 50. AHURI. Southern Research Centre http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/p40163/ (accessed March 23, 2007).

Jacobs, K. and T. Manzi . 1996. Discourse and Policy Change: The significance of Language for Housing Research, Housing Studies , 11(4) 543-560. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ftinterface?content=a777164503&rt=0&format=pdf (accessed 19 February 2007).

James, W. 1891. The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life, An Address to the Yale Philosophical Club, published in the Internal Journal of Ethics , April 1891. http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/American/mp&ml.htm (accessed July 23, 2009).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 267

Jamrozik, A. 2001 . Social policy in the post-welfare state: Australian society in the 21st century. Frenchs Forest, N.S.W: Pearson Education.

Johnson, C. 1999. Cash and Cowboys-Barriers for entry to private rental housing by disadvantaged consumers . Sydney: NSW Council of Social Service.

Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. 2003. Report of the Inquiry into the 2001 Federal Election and matters related thereto . http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elect01/report.htm (accessed July 20, 2009).

Jones, A. and T. Sellig 2004. Understanding and enhancing research policy linkages in Australian Housing: a discussion paper AHURI Position Paper No 75 AHURI. QLD: AHURI. http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/search.asp?ShowSearch=False&Search=Properties& Keywords=Jones&Search-Author=True&Sort=Search-Title&Direction=DESC#results (accessed July 20, 2009).

Jones, M. 1972. Housing and Poverty in Australia . Carlton, Victoria: Melbourne University Press,

Johnston, C. 2002. Rent assistance to private and community sector tenants . Sydney: Shelter NSW.

Johnson, G. 2001. Housing is a Human Right: Homelessness is Structural Violence: Queensland Shelter’s response to “Which Way Home”: A New Approach to Homelessness . http://www.homelessnessinfo.net.au/dmdocuments/q_shelter_green_paper_response.pd f (accessed July 30, 2003).

Johnson, G. and C. Chamberlain. 2008. From Youth to Adult Homelessness, Australian Journal of Social Issues 43(4): 563-582. http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/salvwr/_assets/main/documents/crisisservices/pdf/articl e%20-%20from%20youth%20to%20adult%20homelessness%2018052009.pdf (accessed July 20, 2009).

Jordan, A. 1995. Displaced Homeless Adolescent Claimants for Social Security Payments , Research Paper No 66. Department of Social Security. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.

Judd, B., K. Kavanagh, A. Morris and Y. Naidoo. 2004. Housing Options and independent Living: Sustainable Outcomes for Older People who are Homeless . Final report NSW: AHURI. http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/projects/p70135 (accessed July 20, 2009).

Justice R Sackville. 2003. Homelessness, Human Rights and the Law , Australian Journal of Human Rights v2 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AJHR/2004/2.html (accessed 20th July 2009).

Kavanagh, K., Naidoo, Y., Judd, B. & Morris, A. 2003. Achieving Sustainable Outcomes for Older Homeless People , 3rd National Homelessness Conference: Beyond the Divide, Australian Federation of Homeless Organisations, Brisbane, May 2003.

Kamieniecki, G. 2001. Prevalence of psychological distress and psychiatric disorders among homeless youth in Australia: A Comparative Review. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry , 35(3):352-358.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 268 http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/cgi- bin/fulltext/118968496/PDFSTART (accessed July 23, 2009).

Karvelas, P. 2008. Control income `for all on welfare'. Weekend Australian, October 18- 19:12

Keating, P.J., P. Baldwin, and R. Crowley. 1995. Agenda for families . Parliamentary paper (Australia. Parliament) 1995, no. 73. Canberra : Australian Government Printing Service

Keechang, K. 2000. Aliens in Medieval Law: The Origins of Modern Citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kelly, P. 2000. John Malcolm Fraser 11 November 1975–11 March 1983, In Australian Prime Ministers ed. M. Grattan: 354–378, 484–485. NSW: New Holland.

Kemeny, J. 1988. Defining Housing reality: Ideological hegemony and Power in Housing Research, Housing Studies , 3 (94): 205-218. http://www.informaworld.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/smpp/ftinterface~db=jour~conte nt=a777184813~fulltext=713240930?words=kemeny|defining|housing|reality|ideological |hegemony|power|research&hash=1283069060 (accessed July 23, 2009).

Kendall, G. and G. Wickham. 1999. Using Foucault's Methods. Australia: Sage Publications

Kendig, H., C. Paris, and N. Anderson. 1987. Towards Fair Shares in Australian Housing , Canberra: Highland Press.

Kennett, P. 1999. Homelessness, Exploring the New Tenant, In Homelessness, Citizenship and Social Exclusion. ed. P. Kennett and A. Marsh A. University of Bristol: The Policy Press.

Kerr, D. 1999. Beheading the King and Enthroning the Market: A Critique of Foucauldian Governmentality. Science and Society 63 (2):173-202. http://proquest.umi.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/pqdweb?index=3&did=42196191&Srch Mode=3&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=12535920 97&clientId=14394&aid=1 (accessed October 2, 2008).

Kerr, L. and H. Savelsberg. 2001. The community service sector in the era of the market model: facilitators of social change or servants of the State? Just Policy 23: 22-32. http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=200115148;res=APAFT > ISSN: 1323-2266 (accessed May 15, 2009).

Khan, R. and J. Hill. 2001. New housing delivery models : Alternative for whom? Alternative to what? An analysis from the 'housing citizens. In 2 nd National Housing Conference, Brisbane, Australia. http://www.nationalhousingconference.org.au (accessed 25 July, 2005).

Kothari, M. 2005. Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, Addendum Summary of communications Sent and replies Received from Governments and Other Actions , 16 December 2004-1 December 2005 Human Rights Council. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/docs/62chr/E.CN.4.2006.48.Add.1.pdf (accessed July 23, 20009).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 269

Kothari, M. 2006. UN Special Rapporteur to adequate housing, Mission to Australia 31 July- 15 August 2006, Preliminary Observations. http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/international_docs/pdf/un_sp_housing_missionto australia_15aug2006.pdf (accessed July 23, 2009).

Kothari, M. 2007. Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, Addendum, Report to the United Nations Human Rights Council. http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G07/125/72/PDF/G0712572.pdf?OpenElement (accessed July 23, 2009).

Koutsoukis, J. 1999. MP Alarmed at Tenancy and credit black lists. Melbourne Age , December 13.

Kuhn, T 1997. The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change . U.S.A.: University of Chicago Press.

Kunnen, N. and R. Martin. 2004. “Getting back on my feet” Exploring self-reliance in the context of supported accommodation and homelessness. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

Kyle, K. 2005. Contextualizing Homelessness: Critical Theory, homelessness and federal policy addressing the homeless . New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Landt, J. and R. Bray. 1997. Alternative approaches to measuring rental housing affordability in Australia. Canberra, A.C.T: NATSEM, University of Canberra.

Lanyon, A, M. Mancoros, B. Stimson, L. Makdacy and J. Western. 1999. Support for the Homeless in Australia. In Social policy for the 21st century: justice and responsibility : proceedings of the National Social Policy Conference Sydney, 21-23 July 1999, ed. Sheila Shaver and P. Saunders SPRC Reports and Proceedings No 141 December 1999.

Larner, W. 2000. Neo-Liberalism: Policy, Ideology, Governmentality. Studies in Politcal Economy 63.5-26. http://spe.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/spe/article/viewFile/6724/3723 (accessed July 20, 2009).

Lemke, T. 2001. The Birth of Bio-Politics: Michel Foucault's Lecture at the College de France on Neo-Liberal Governmentality. Economy and Society 30 (2):190-207. http://pdfserve.informaworld.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/431294_907954723_7137666 74.pdf (accessed 14 December 2003).

Levi, R. 2000. The mutuality of risk and community: the adjudication of community notification statutes. Economy and Society 29 (4): 578 – 601. http://pdfserve.informaworld.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/184068_907954723_7137666 54.pdf (accessed 14 December 2003).

Lewisson, L. (1990) Homelessness Bibliography No 1/90 . Liverpool, NSW: NSW Department of Housing Library.

Lianos, M. and M. Douglas. 2005. Dangerisation and the End of Deviance: the Institutional Environment. In Criminology and Social Theory , ed. D Garland and R Sparks, 103-125. Oxford: University Press.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 270

Lindsay, M.1993. Moving Forward National Evaluation of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program . Canberra: AGPS.

Lipmann, B. 1999. Protecting the homeless from Economic Rationalism. Victorian Aged Care Conference, July 1999. http://www.health.vic.gov.au/agedcare/publications/conferencejuly99/blippman.pdf (accessed July 23, 2009).

Lipmann, N. 2006. A Home until Stumps: How Have the Policy changes over the past 20 years affected the elderly Homeless? Presentation to the Australian Federation of HOmelss Organisations 4 th National Homelessness Conference 2006.

Lloyd, C. and P. Troy. 1981. Innovation and Reaction: The Life and Death of the Department of Urban and Regional Development . Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

Locke, J. 1690. Second Treatise on Government . http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Locke/second/second-frame.html (accessed July 20, 2009).

Lockwood, M. 1987. Singles Access to Assistance under the 1984 CSHA , National Youth Coalition for Housing. Canberra: Dept of Community Services and Health.

Lowe, S. 1997. Homelessness and the Law , in Homelessness and Social Policy , ed. R. Burrows, R., N. Pleace, and D. Quilgars. London: Routledge.

Lynch, P. and B. Stagoll. 2002. Promoting Equality: Homelessness and Discrimination, Deakin Law Review 7(2):295-322 http://heinonline.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/deakin7&i d=1&size=2&collection=journals&index=journals/deakin (accessed 20th July 2009).

Lynch P. 2003. From Cause to Solution: Homelessness and the Law in Australian and the US, Alternative Law Journal 28(3):127-131. http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=200307857;res=APAFT> ISSN: 1037-969X [accessed 22 Jul 09].

Lynch, P. 2003. From ‘Cause” to “Solution” Homelessness and the Law in Australia and the United States . Proceedings 3 rd National Homelessness Conference, “Beyond the Divide”. Brisbane, Queensland, April 2003. Brisbane.

Lynch, P. 2002. Begging for Change: Homelessness and the Law, Melbourne University Law Review 26(3):690-707 http://heinonline.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/mulr26&id =1&size=2&collection=journals&index=journals/mulr (accessed 20th July 2009).

Lynch, P. and D. Tsorbaris. 2004. Homelessness and Voting Submission the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry into the Conduct of the 2004 Federal Election and Matters Related Thereto . Victoria: Public Interest Law Clearinghouse and Council to Homeless Persons. http://www.pilch.org.au/Assets/Files/Homelessness_Voting_Submission%20_2005.pdf (accessed 20 th July 2009)

Lynch, P. and J. Cole. 2003. Homelessness and Human Rights: Regarding and Responding to Homelessness as a Human Rights Violation. Melbourne Journal of International Law 4 (1):

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 271

139–76 http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=20040206;res=AGISPT accessed July 23, 2009).

MacKenzie, D. and C. Chamberlain. 2003. Homeless Careers: Pathways in and out of Homelessness . Victoria: Swinburne and RMIT Universities. http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/reports/Homeless_Careers_2003.pdf (accessed July 20, 2009).

Mackie, C. and G. Johson 1998. Homelessness and the Print News Media. Parity 11(9).

Main, Thomas. 1998. How to Think About Homelessness: balancing Structural and Individual Causes, Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless , 7(1):41-54. http://www.springerlink.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/content/m616011425318h88/fullte xt.pdf (accessed July 23, 2009).

Marshall, T. H. 1992. Citizenship and social class . Concord, Mass: Pluto Press,

Marston, G. 2000. Metaphor, morality and myth: a critical discourse analysis of public housing in Queensland” Critical Social Policy 20(3):349-373. http://csp.sagepub.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/cgi/reprint/20/3/349 (accessed July 23, 2009).

Marston, G. 2002. Fashion, Fiction, Fertile Inquiry Struggling with the Postmodern Challenge and social policy analysis. In Competing Visions , Refereed Proceedings of the National Social Policy Conference 2001,:298-316, ed. T. Eardley and B Bradbury. Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales.

Marston, G. and R. Watts. 2003. Tampering with the Evidence: A Critical Appraisal of Evidence Policy Making, The Drawing Board An Australian Review of Public Affairs 3(3) 143- 163. Sydney: University of Sydney. http://www.australianreview.net/journal/v3/n3/marston_watts.pdf (accessed 30 July 2008).

Martin, L., H. Guttman and P. Hutton eds. 1988. Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault, pp. 16–49. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press.

Marx, A. 2001. Further probe by watchdog into database. Courier Mail , March 28.

McArther, M., J. Zubrzycki, A. Rochester, L. Thomson, 2006. Dad, where are we going to Live Now?' Exploring Fathers' Experiences of Homelessness, Australian Social Work 59(3):288-300.

McCarron, E. and S. Forell. 2006. No Home No Justice? Meeting the legal needs of homeless people , Proceedings of Waking Up to Homelessness: National Conference, 2006.

McCaughey, J. 1992. Where Now? Homeless Families in the 1990s Policy Background paper No 8. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

McHoul, A. and W. Grace. 1993. A Foucault Primer: Discourse, Power & the Subject . Melbourne: University Press.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 272

McIntosh, G. and J. Phillips. 2000 . There no home like place - Homelessness in Australia , E _brief 9 November 2000 . http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/homeless.htm (accessed July 20, 2009).

McRae, R. and D. Nicholson. 2004. No Place like home: homelessness in Australia and the Right to Adequate Housing. Australian Journal of Human Rights 10(3): n.p. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AJHR/2004/3.html (accessed July 23, 2009).

Mead, L. 1986. Beyond Entitlement: The Social Obligations of Citizenship , New York: The Free Press. Quoted in M. Dean, M. 2002. Liberal government and authoritarianism. Economy and Society 31 (1):37-61. http://pdfserve.informaworld.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/762776_907954723_7137667 10.pdf (accessed July 10, 2007).

Mead, L. ed. 1997. The new paternalism: supervisory approaches to poverty . Washington DC: Bookings Institute.

Meade, K. 2000a. Difficult renters stuck in bad books. Australian , May 25.

Meade, K. 2000b. Listing left family homeless. Australian , Sept 21.

Meade, K. 2000c. Cheated out of house and home by identity mistake. Australian , May 25.

Meadowcroft, G and Charman, D 2001. A psychological study of homeless young women [online]. Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist , 17(2): 70-81. http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=200206331;res=APAFT (accessed July 23, 2009).

Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. 2007. Poverty Lines: Australia, March Quarter 2007. http://melbourneinstitute.com/labour/inequality/poverty (accessed 18 May 2009).

Mendelson, R. 1979. The Condition of the People, Social Welfare in Australia 1900-1975 . Netley South Australia: George Allen & Unwin Australia.

Mendes, P. 2006. A Different Kind of Welfare Reform . http://cpd.org.au/article/different- kind-welfare-reform (accessed July 23, 2009)

Mendes, P. 2003. Australia’s welfare wars: the players, the politics and the ideologies . Sydney: UNSW Press.

Mental Health Council of Australia. 2009. Home Truths Mental Health, Housing and Homelessness in Australia. ACT, MHCA.http://www.mhca.org.au/documents/MHCA%20Home%20Truths%20Layout%20%2 0FINAL.pdf (accessed July 20, 2009).

Menzies, R. 1968. Central power in the Australian Commonwealth: an examination of the growth of Commonwealth power in the Australian federation . Melbourne: Cassell Australia.

Meyers, M., N. Riccucci and I. Lurie. 2001. Achieving Goal Congruence in Complex Environments: The Case of Welfare Reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11(2): 165-207. http://proquest.umi.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/pqdweb?index=3&did=72208399&Srch

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 273

Mode=1&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=12536016 49&clientId=14394 (accessed July 20, 2009).

Middendorf, C. 2006. The Forgotten People. Melbourne Age , December 16.

Midgley, B. 2005. Achieving just outcomes for homeless people through the court process. Journal of Judicial Administration 5(2):82-107.

Mill, J. 1863. Utilitarians Chapter 2. What Utilitarianism Is. http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill2.htm (accessed 23 June 2008).

Mill, J. 1869. On Liberty . Harvard Classics Volume 25. MA: Collier and Son. http://www.constitution.org/jsm/liberty.htm (accessed July 23, 2009)

Miller, P. and T. O'Leary. 1987. Accounting and the Construction of the Governable Person, Accounting Organisations and Society 12(3):235-265 http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezp02.library.qut.edu.au/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B 6VCK-45YDRRC-15- 1&_cdi=5957&_user=62921&_orig=browse&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1987&_sk=9998799 96&view=c&wchp=dGLbVzz- zSkzV&md5=ece6dd05738e94ca3eef34f796418b8c&ie=/sdarticle.pdf (accessed 5 March 2006)

Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. 2003. Residential Tenancy Databases: Issues Paper . Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Communication, Information Technology and the Arts.

Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs/Standing Committee on Attorneys General. 2005. Report on Residential Tenancy Databases. http://www.consumer.gov.au/html/download/Report_on_Residential_Tenancy_Databases .pdf (accessed July 20, 2009).

Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs/Standing Committee on Attorneys General Working Party on Residential Tenancy Databases. 2006. RIS – Regulation of Residential Tenancy Databases. http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(5D2C4FE396BA14AE3D8E6A1858D 4F610)~RTDs-RegulationImpactStatement-28March2006.pdf/$file/RTDs- RegulationImpactStatement-28March2006.pdf (accessed July 20, 2009).

Ministerial Youth Homeless Taskforce. 1998. Putting Families in the Picture , Canberra: Commonwealth Dept. of Family and Community Services.

Minogue, S. 2002. The Implications of Using Homeless People for Public Relations purposes. http://mams.rmit.edu.au/5q92vvb8q84.pdf (accessed July 20, 2009).

Morris, A., B. Juddand K. Kavanagh 2005. Marginality Amongst Plenty pathways into Homelessness for older Australians, Australian Journal of Social Issues , 40(2):241-25. http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=200508184;res=APAFT (accessed July 23, 2009).

Mullins, P. and J. Western, 2001. An Examination of the Relationships between Housing Systems and Non Housing Outcomes . Queensland: Australia Housing Research Institute.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 274

Mundell, M. 2003. Giving voice to the voiceless: improving access to the vote for people experiencing homelessness Alternative Law Journal , 28(6): 269-271,301. ISSN: 1037-969X (accessed July 20, 2009).

Munro, D. 1998. Public Rental Housing Policy: Learning the Lessons from Overseas , Research Paper 6 1997-1998, APL (accessed 26 April 2007)

Myrdal, G. 1944. An American dilemma: The negro problem and modern democracy . New York: Harper & Bros.

Naticcha, C. 1998. Human Rights, Liberalism and Rawl’s Law of Peoples. Social Theory and Practice 24(3): 345-412. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/ehost/pdf?vid=3&hid=106&sid=5a419 640-b855-4ad0-b0f0-281622f405f5%40sessionmgr4 (accessed July 23, 2009).

National Community Housing Forum. 2003. Community Housing Responses to Homelessness , Discussion Series 8, 2003 www.nchf.org.au/downloads/homelessness.pdf (accessed July 23, 2009).

National Community Housing Forum. n.d. Sustainable communities, Housing and Welfare reform , Discussion Paper No 3, Housing and the Welfare Review. http://www.nchf.org.au/downloads/housing_sustain_comm.pdf (accessed 23 July 2008)

National Community Housing Framework 2004-2008. http://www.nchf.org.au/downloads/NCHFstrategicframework.pdf (accessed July 23, 2009).

National Housing Strategy. 1992a. National Housing Strategy: agenda for action . Canberra: Australian Govt Printing Service.

National Housing Strategy. 1992b. Housing choice: reducing the barriers . Canberra: Australian Govt Printing Service.

Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth)

Needham, K. 2002. Real estate secret blacklist open to tenants. Sydney Morning Herald , November 11.

Neil, C. and R. Fopp. 1992. Homelessness in Australia, Causes and Consequences . Victoria: Ministerial Advisory Committee on Homelessness and Housing CSIRO Division of Building, Construction and Engineering,.

Newman, J. 1999. The Challenge of Welfare Dependency in the 21st Century , Discussion Paper. Canberra: Welfare Reform Reference Group, Department of Family and Community Services.

Nicholson, D. 2004. The Human Right to Housing in Australia , Produced for the Housing is A Human Right Project. Victoria: VCOSS and Shelter Victoria, Women’s Housing Ltd and Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions. http://www.vcoss.org.au/documents/VCOSS%20docs/Housing/Human%20right%20to%20 hhousing_Eb.pdf (accessed July 23, 2009).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 275

Nissim, R. 2004. Little Piece of Heaven: Thoughts from Victorians on Housing as a Human Right . Victoria: VCOSS and Shelter Victoria, Women’s Housing Ltd and Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions. http://www.vcoss.org.au/documents/VCOSS%20docs/Housing/Heavenweb.pdf (accessed July 23, 2009).

Norberry, J .and G. Williams. 2002. Voters and the Franchise: The Federal Story . Research Paper No 17 2001-2002. Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/rp/2001-02/02rp17.htm (accessed 20th July 2009)

North, J. 1994. Democracy in Rome, History Today March 1994, 44(3):38-42. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/ehost/pdf?vid=3&hid=9&sid=fea857dc- 2472-44db-aba3-3ff2c89e227e%40sessionmgr104 (accessed 20 July 2009).

Norwood, K. 1997. Homeless Population Census Evaluation , Census Working Paper. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

O. v. Tenancy Database Company 2006 PrivCmrA 14

O’Connor, P. 1963. Britain in the Sixties: Vagrancies Ethos and Actuality . Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.

O’Dwyer, L. 2004. A critical review of evidence-based policy making , Final Report. Southern Research Centre, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/search.asp?ShowSearch=False&Search=Properties& Keywords=O%27Dwyer&Search-Author=True&Sort=Search-Title&Direction=DESC#results (accessed July 23, 2009).

O’Dwyer,L., L. Trinder, and S. Reynolds, S. eds. 2000. Evidence Based Practice: A critical Appraisal . Oxford: Blackwell Science.

O'Connor, P. 1963. Britain in the Sixties: Vagrancy Ethos and Actuality . Great Britain: Penguin Books.

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 1989. Convention on the Rights of the Child. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm(accessed July 23, 2009).

Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 1990. The nature of States parties obligations (Art. 2, par.1) : CESCR General comment 3. (General Comments). http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CESCR+General+comment+3.En?OpenDocum ent (accessed August 3, 2009).

Office of the Privacy Commissioner. 1999. National Principles for the Fair Handling of Personal Information, www.privacy.gov.au/publications/HRC_PRIVACY_PUBLICATION.pdf_file.p6_4_1.86.pdf (accessed July 23, 2009).

Office of the Privacy Commissioner . 2004. Complaint Determination No. 4 of 2004. http://privacy.gov.au/act/casenotes/comdeter0404.html (accessed July 23, 2009).

Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Complaint Determination No. 2 of 2004, April 2004. http://www.privacy.gov.au/act/casenotes/comdeter0402.html (accessed July 23, 2009).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 276

Office of the Privacy Commissioner.2005. Getting in on the Act: The Review of the Private Sector Provisions of the Privacy Act 1988, March 2005. http://www.privacy.gov.au/act/review/revreport.pdf (accessed July 23, 2009).

Office of the United National High Commissioner for Human Rights, Fact Sheet no 21, The Human Right to Adequate Housing, http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs21.htm (accessed July 23, 2009).

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 1989. CESCR General Comment 1, Reporting by State Parties. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/38e23a6ddd6c0f4dc12563ed0051cde7?Open document (accessed 3 January 2010).

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 1990. “The nature of States parties obligations (Art. 2, par.1 : 14/12/90.CESCR General comment 3. http://www.fao.org/righttofood/KC/downloads/vl/docs/AH351.pdf (accessedJuly 23, 2009).

Office of the United National High Commissioner for Human Rights. 1991. The right to adequate housing (Art.11 (1)): 13/12/91, CESCR General Comment 4. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CESCR+General+comment+4.En?OpenDocum ent (accessed July 20, 2009).

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1980. OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data. http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,2340,en_2649_34255_1815186_1_1_1_1,00.html (accessed July 20, 2009)

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2005. Recent price developments: the role of fundamentals. OECD Economic Outlook No 78 (Ch 3): 193-234. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/oecd/04745574/2005/00002005/00000002/120 5021ec011 (accessed July 20, 2009).

Orr, G. 1999. Ballotless and Behind Bars: the Denial of the Franchise to Prisoners Federal Law Review 26(1):55-82. http://heinonline.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/fedlr26&id =1&size=2&collection=journals&index=journals/fedlr (accessed July 20, 2009)

Otto, D. and D. Wisemen. 2001. In Search of ‘effective remedies’: Applying the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to Australia. Australian Journal of Human Rights 7 (1) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AJHR/2001/2.html (accessed July 23, 2009).

Otto, D. 2002. Homelessness and Human Rights. Alternative Law Journal 27 (6): 271- 276,281. http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=200301547;res=APAFT (accessed 23 June 2008).

Otto, D. 2003. Addressing Homelessness as a Violation of Human Rights in the Australian Context. Just Policy 31 December: 49-53. http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=200401434;res=APAFT (accessed 23 June 2008).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 277

Otto, D. and P. Lynch. 2003. Housing, homelessness and human rights. Australian Journal of Human Rights 9(1), http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi- bin/sinodisp/au/journals/AJHR/2003/1.html?query=Otto%20and%20Lynch (accessed 20 June 2008).

Ozdowski, S. 2001. Human Rights in Contemporary Australia , Paper delivered at the Law Conference 2001, New Zealand. .http://www.hreoc.gov.au/about/media/speeches/human_rights/hr_in_australia.html (accessed July 23, 2009).

P. v. Tenancy Database 2006 PrivCmrA 18

Parker, P. and R. Fopp. 2004. ‘I’m the Slice of Pie that’s Ostracised’...Foucault’s Technologies and Personal Agency, in the Voice of women who are Homeless, Adelaide, South Australia. Housing Theory and Society 21(4):145-154.

Parker, S., L. Limbers and E. McKeon. 2002. Homelessness and mental illness: Mapping the way home . Sydney: MHCC Publications. http://www.mhcc.org.au/documents/Homelessness-and-Mental-Illness-Apr02.pdf (accessed July 23, 2009).

Parkes, H. 1854. Report from the Select Committee on the Proposed Nautical School, William Hanson, Government Printer Sydney, November 1854, p4.cited Labor Discipline and the Industrial School System in Sydney 1870-1900, Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society, Vol 75, No 1, 1989, pp 51-64; www.uow.edu.au/arts/research/ejournal/archives/jun04/ksarticle.pdf (accessed October 2, 2003).

Paulsen, N. 2003. Managing strategic challenges in community sector organisations, Queensland Review 10(1): 141-153. ISSN: 1321-8166 (accessed July 23, 2009).

Peatling, S. 2009. Centrelink penalty adding to homelessness, Sydney Morning Herald , 21 January 2009:6.

Phelan. J., B. Link, R. Moore and A. Stueve. 1997. The stigma of homelessness. The impact of the label ‘homelessness’ on attitudes toward poor persons. Social Psychology Quarterly 60(4): 325-337. http://proquest.umi.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/pqdweb?index=1&did=25640843&Srch Mode=1&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=12536102 61&clientId=14394 (accessed March 15, 2007).

Piddock, S. 1997. Accommodating the Destitute: An Historical and Archaeological Consideration of the Destitute Asylum of Adelaide. Australian Archaeology 45. www.australianarchaeologicalassociation.com.au

Piliavin, I., B. Wright, R. Mare and A. Westerfelt. 1996. Exits from, and Returns to Homelessness. Social Service Review 70(1):33-57 .

Pinkney, S. and S. Ewing, 2006. The Costs and Pathways of Homelessness: Developing policy-relevant economic analyses for the Australian homelessness service system , Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 278

Popovic, J. 2002. Homelessness and the Law: A View from the Bench. Public Interest Law Clearinghouse and Sir Zelman Cowen Centre for Legal Education. Parity 17(1):53-56.

Porter, M. 1986. The rise of statistical thinking, 1820-1900. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Act 2000 (Cth)

Privacy (Private Sector) Amendment Regulations 2007 (no.3) (Cth)

Privacy Commission of Australia. 2004. Complaint Determination No. 1 of 2004. http://www.privacy.gov.au/act/casenotes/comdeter0401.html (accessed July 23, 2009).

Procacci., G. 1991. Social Economy and the Government of Poverty. In The Foucault Effect: Studies in governmentality with two lectures by and interview with Michel Foucault , ed. G Burchell, C. Godeon and P. Miller, 87-104.Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatshelf.

Procacci, G. 1994. Governing Poverty: Sources of the Social Question in Nineteenth Century France. In Foucault and the writing of History, ed. J . Goldstein, 206-219. Cambridge: Blackwell.

Proceedings of the Conference held on 3rd to 4th August 1998, Sydney – Ian Buchan Fell Housing Research Centre, University of Sydney.

Prosser, B. and A. Groth. 1994. Reaching Out Directions for Further Reform of Income Support and Related Programs to Assist Homeless People Discussion Paper on Arrangements for Meeting the Needs of Homeless People , AGPS.

Public Interest Law Clearinghouse. 2008. Homelessness and Voting, Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, Inquiry into the 2007 Federal Election.http://www.pilch.org.au/Assets/Files/2007_Cth_JSCEM_Electoral_Inquiry.pdf (accessed July 20, 2009)

Public Record Office Victoria. 2005. Agency VA 1466 Department of Industrial and Reformatory Schools . http://www.access.prov.vic.gov.au/public/component/daPublicBaseContainer?component =daViewAgency&entityId=1466 (accessed July 23, 2009).

Pugh, C. 1975. Intergovernmental relations and the development of Australian housing Policies Research Monograph No 6 . Canberra: Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations Australian National University.

Pusey, M. 1991. Economic Rationalism in Canberra. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Putnis, P. 1999. Popular Discourse and Images of Poverty and Welfare in New Media. In Creating Unequal Futures , ed. Fincher and Saunders. N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin.

Pyor, A. 2002. Secret Real Estate Business, Sydney Morning Herald . November 13,

Pyor, A. 2003. Accuracy of tenancy blacklists questioned. Sydney Morning Herald November 26.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 279

Queensland Department of Communities. 2005. Eligibility for housing assistance. http://www.housing.qld.gov.au/renting/public/applying/eligibility.htm (accessed September 9, 2009).

Queensland Parliament 2003, 3648

Queensland Shelter n.d. New Housing Delivery Models. Alternative for Whom? Alternative to what ? An analysis from the ‘housing citizens’. Brisbane: Q Shelter.

Quiggan, J. 1998. ‘Homelessness: the human face of economic imperatives’. Parity 11(6): 8- 9. http:/eprint.uq.edua.au/archive/0000057701Homelessness98.htm (accessed July 30, 2007).

Rabinow, P. ed. 1984. The Foucault Reader . Harmondsworth, Penguin

Raper, M. 2007. Tackling the Causes of Homelessness. ACOSS INFO 203 - 7 March 2000. www.acoss.org.au/upload/publications/papers/info%20203.pdf ( accessed July 2, 2009).

Rawls, J. 1958. Justice as Fairness. The Philosophical Review 67(2): 164-194. http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/pdfplus/2182612.pdf (accessed August 3, 2009).

Rawls, J. 1972. A Theory of Justice . Oxford : Clarendon Press .

Real Estate Institute of Australia. REIA Submission to the ALRC Issues Paper on the Review of the Privacy Act 1988. http://www.reiaustralia.com.au/new/submissionsgov.asp (accessed July 10, 2009)

Report from the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare. 1982. Homeless Youth , Parliament of Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.

Report of the Working Party of Homeless Men and Women to Minister for Social Security. 1973. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.

Reynolds, F. 2007. (Mis) Understanding Homelessness: Reframing the Research Questions, Parity 20(7):16-17.

Robinson, C. 2003. Understanding Iterative Homelessness: the case of people with mental disorders . NSW: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/projects/p70072 (accessed July 20, 2009).

Roosevelt, E. 1948. The Promise of Human Rights, Journal of Foreign Affairs 26(3): 470-477. http://heinonline.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/fora26&id =1&size=2&collection=journals&index=journals/fora (accessed July 20, 2009).

Rose, L .1988. Rogues and Vagabonds Vagrant Underworld in Britain 1815-1885. Great Britain: Routledge.

Rose, N. and P.Miller. 1992. Political power beyond the State: problematics of government. The British Journal of Sociology , 43(2): 173-205. http://www.jstor.org.ezp02.library.qut.edu.au/stable/591464 (accessed 2 June 2006).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 280

Rose, N. 1991. Governing by Numbers: Figuring Out Democracy. Accounting Organisations and Society 16 (7):673-692.

Rose, N. 1993. Government, authority and expertise in advanced liberalism. Economy and Society 22(3): 283- 299. http://www.informaworld.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/smpp/content~db=all~content=a 739404086 (accessed July 23, 2009).

Rose, N. 1999. Powers of Freedom, Reframing Political Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://assets.cambridge.org/97805216/50755/sample/9780521650755wsc00.pdf (accessed 21 July 2009)

Rose, N., P. O’Malley and M. Valverde. 2006. Governmentality. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 2: 83-104. http://arjournals.annualreviews.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.la wsocsci.2.081805.105900 (accessed June 1, 2008)

Rosenthal, R. 2000. Imaging Homelessness and Homeless People - Visions and Strategies within Movements, Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless 9(2):111-125. http://www.springerlink.com.ezp02.library.qut.edu.au/content/u216201206xv41l1/?p=2d4 415c793004c52a80cd098fad0f255&pi=2 (accessed 3 February 2007).

Rossiter, B. 2001. ‘Experts and animals revisited’, Parity , 14(1)12–13. htttp://www.projeti.org.au/research/article02.htm (accessed June 1, 2008).

Rota-Bartelink, A. and B. Lipmann. 2007. Causes of homelessness among older people in Melbourne Australia, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 31 (3): 252-258. http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=200707070;res=APAFT (accessed July 18, 2009).

Rousseau, Jean J. 1968. The Social Contract . Trans. M. Cranston, Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

Rousseau, Jean J.1762. The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right . Trans. G. D. H. Cole, Rendered into HTML and text by Jon Roland of the Constitution Society http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm (accessed August 3, 2009).

RPR Consulting. 2003. National Community Housing Standards, 2 nd edition . ACT: National Community Housing Forum

Rubenstein, K. 1995. Citizenship in Australia: Unscrambling Its Meaning. Melbourne University Law Review 20:503-527. http://heinonline.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/mulr20&id =1&size=2&collection=journals&index=journals/mulr (accessed July 20, 2009).

Rubenstein, K. 1997. Citizenship and the Constitutional Convention Debates: A Mere Legal Reference. Federal Law Review 25:295-316 http://heinonline.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/fedlr25&id =1&size=2&collection=journals&index=journals/fedlr (accessed July 20, 2009).

Rubenstein, K. 2002. Australian Citizenship Law in Context . Freemont NSW: Lawbook Co

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 281

Rudd, K Prime Minister. 2008. Launch of Which Way Home? - A New Approach to Homelessness, 5th National Homelessness Conference, Adelaide http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Speech/2008/speech_0260.cfm (accessed 2 December 2008).

SAAP V Multilateral Agreement in relation to the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/vIA/saap3/$File/SAAP_V_Multitlateral_A greement.pdf

Springer, E. 2000. Homelessness: a Proposal for A Global Definition and classification. Habitat International 24(4) 275-284.

Sackville, R. 1975. Law and Poverty in Australia: Second Main Report , Australian Government Commission into Poverty. Canberra: AGPS.

Sackville, R. 1976. Homeless people and the law: a report / by the Commissioner for Law and Poverty. Canberra: AGPS.

Sackville, R. 2000. Opinion: Homeless People and the Law Parity 13(6): 24.

Sackville, R. 2004. Homelessness, human rights and the law, Australian Journal of Human Rights , 10(2). http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AJHR/2004/ (accessed 24 July 2009).

Saunders, P. 1994. Welfare and the Inequality . Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Saunders, P. 2001. Reflections on Social Security the Welfare Review. Australian Economic Review 34(1):100-8. http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=200109798 ;res=APAFT (accessed 20 November 2008).

Saunders, P. 2005. Research Social Policy Trends Tragedies and Triumphs , Plenary Address to the 9 th Australian Social Policy Conference 20-22 July 2005, Sydney: SPRC.

Saunders, P. and P. Siminski. 2005. Home Ownership and Inequality: Imputed rent and Income Distribution in Australia , SPRC Discussion Paper No 144. U Sydney: SPRC

Saunders, P . 2005 . The poverty wars: reconnecting research with reality . Sydney: UNSW Press.

Schindeler, E. 2007. The Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences 2 (1): 83-94.

Schindeler, E. 2008. The Gap Between Human Rights and Political Rationalities in Australia: Homelessness as a Breach of Human Rights Obligations in Law and Practice In Activating Human Rights and Peace Conference Proceedings , NSW: Centre for Peace and Justice, Southern Cross University.

Schindeler, E. 2009. Housing Issues for Women Escaping Domestic Violence. Brisbane: Queensland Shelter.

Seelig, T. 2003. Tenant Lists, Tenant Risks: Rental Databases and Housing Policy in Australia. Flinders Journal of Law Reform 7(1):27-39.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 282 http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=200401059;res=APAFT (accessed July 21, 2009)

Seeling, T. 1997. Privacy Issues in the private rental sector: The growth of tenant databases in Australia. National Housing Action 13:7-9.

Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee 2004. A Hand Up Not a Hand Out: Renewing the fight against poverty . Commonwealth of Australia 2004 http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002- 04/poverty/report/report.pdf (accessed July 2, 2009).

Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee. 1997. Inquiry into Housing Assistance , Report on Housing Assistance . Canberra: Senate Printing Service.

Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee. 1998. Report on the provisions of the electoral and referendum amendment bill (No. 2) 1998. http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/Committee/fapa_ctte/completed_inquiries/1996- 99/electoral/report/report.htm#FOOTNOTE_12 (accessed July 20, 2009)

Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. 1995. Trick or Treaty? Commonwealth Power to Make and Implement Treaties . http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/committee/legcon_ctte/completed_inquiries/pre1996/tre aty/report/c06.htm (accessed July 23, 2009).

Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee. 1999. Report on the Inquiry into privacy protection in Australia http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/completed_inquiries/1999- 02/privacy/report/contents.htm (accessed July 10, 2009)

Senate Select Committee on Housing Affordability. 2008. A good house is hard to find: Housing affordability in Australia . Canberra: Senate Printing Unit, Parliament House. http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/hsaf_ctte/report/report.pdf (accessed July 10, 2009).

Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare. 1982. Report on Homeless Youth, Parliamentary Paper No 231/1982, Canberra, AGPS.

Senator Ryan 5th November 1987, Senate Hansard, http.//parlinfo.aph.gov.au

Senior Officers Group. 1993. Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) Strategic Directions . Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.

Shafir, G. 1998. The citizenship debates: a reader . Mn: University of Minnesota Press, http://books.google.com/books?id=i6U7CTuCJLYC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=The+Ideal+of+ Citizenship+Since+Classical+Times&source=bl&ots=qkojTGwj2e&sig=zinfzxpOWK3UfBdG20 yWYIf2kDg#PPP1,M1 (accessed July 21, 2009).

Shaver, S. 2001. Australian Welfare Reform: From Citizenship to Social Engineering. Australian Journal of Social Issues 36(4): 277-293. http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=200207053;res=APAFT (accessed November 20, 2008).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 283

Shaver, S. 2001 Australian Welfare Reform: From Citizenship to Social Engineering , Australian Journal of Social Issues , 36(4):277-293. http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=200207053;res=APAFT (accessed July 20, 2009).

Shestack, J. 1998. The Philosophic Foundations of Human Rights. Human Rights Quarterly 20(2):201-234. http://heinonline.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/hurq20&id =1&size=2&collection=journals&index=journals/hurq (accessed July 30, 2008).

Shlay, A. and P. Rossi. 1992. Social Science Research and Contemporary Studies of Homelessness Annual Review of Sociology (18) 129-160. http://arjournals.annualreviews.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.so. 18.080192.001021 (accessed July 30, 2009).

Short, P. and A. Mulch. 2001. Exchange, reciprocity, and citizenship-principles of access and the challenge to human rights in the third sector: An Australian Perspective. Social Justice 28(4); 114-128. (http://proquest.uni.com.ezp02library.qut.edu.au/pqdweb?index=4&did=118268641 (accessed August 9, 2007).

Sidoti, C. 1996. Housing as a human right , Address to National Conference on Homelessness, HREOC, 4 September. http://www.hreoc.gov.au/pdf/human_rights/housing.pdf (accessed July 23, 2009).

Simpson, L. and C. Lumby. 1989. Feral Desperate and Deluded. Sydney Morning Herald , 25 February.

Skolnick, J. 2007. Reflections on Foote on Vagrancy – Type Laws. http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Skolnick.pdf (accessed July 30, 2009).

Snow, A. and M. Bradford. 1994. Broadening Perspectives on Homelessness. American Behavioural Scientist, 37(4), 454-460, Sage Publication ABI/Inform Global . http://proquest.umi.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/pqdweb?index=7&did=732642611&Src hMode=3&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1248947 102&clientId=14394&aid=1 (accessed July 30, 2009).

Snow, D., L. Anderson and P. Koegel. 1994. Distorting tendencies in research on the homeless, American Behavioural Scientist , 37(4) 461-476 http://proquest.umi.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/pqdweb?index=9&did=732642621&Src hMode=3&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1248947 103&clientId=14394&aid=1 (accessed July 30, 2009).

Social Science Research Centre Berline (WZB) and Humbolt University, Berlin, n.d. http://www/irmgard_coninx.stiftung.fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/archives

Southgate, T. 1991. Public Health in the 19th Century: Why Did Central Government Accept Increasing, But Still Limited, Responsibility Between 1800 and 1875 ? http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/hist22.php (accessed January 5, 2004).

Special Government Backbench Committee, 2002. Report To Inquire into the Operation of Tenancy Databases . http://www.rta.qld.gov.au/zone_files/Docs/databasereport.pdf (accessed March 2, 2009).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 284

Spencer, S. n.d. The Victorian Poorhouse . http://dickens.ucsc.edu/OMF/spencer.html (accessed August 29, 2002).

Spinney, A. 2006. A Comparative investigation of policy responses to homelessness in England and Australia . Paper presented at the ENHR Conference “Housing in an expanding Europe: theory, policy, participation and implementation, Slovenia July 2006.

Spooner, C. 2001. Pathways to Problematic Drug Use, Homelessness and Related Problems. Parity 14(8) Sept 2001.

State Records Authority of NSW 2007 Nautical School-ship Vernon (1867-1892) Nautical School-ship Sobaron. http://investigator.records.nsw.gov.au/entity.aspx?path=5%Cagency%5C411 (accessed May 25, 2008).

Strategic Partners, 2000. Technical Forum on the Estimation of Homelessness in Australia. Canberra: Strategic Partners. http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/housing/pubs/homelessness/estimation_homelessness/Doc uments/estimating_homelessness_report.pdf (accessed July 20, 2009).

Stretton, H. 1970. Ideas for Australian Cities . Georgian House, Melbourne.

Stretton, H. 1996. Poor Laws of 1834-1996. Quadrant 40(12): 9-19.

Stubbs, J. 1966. The Hidden People . Melbourne: Lansdown Press Pt Ltd.

Supported Accommodation Assistance Act (Cth) 1994. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/saaa1994359/

Swoln, S. 1988. On the Theory and Practice of Power. In After Foucault, Humanistic Knowledge, Post Modern Challenges , ed. J Arac, 179-201. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Tenant Union of NSW. 2007. Submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission Inquiry into Privacy http://www.tenants.org.au/artman2/uploads/1/ALRCipsub.pdf (accessed July 20, 2009)

Tenants' Union of Queensland Inc and Tenants' Union of NSW Co-op Ltd v TICA Default Tenancy 2004 PrivCmrACD 3.

Teesson, M. Hodder, T. and Buhrich, N. (2003) Alcohol and other drug use disorders among homeless people in Australia. Substance Use and Misuse , 38(3-6): 463-74.

Thornton, M. 1990. The Liberal Promise: Anti Discrimination Legislation in Australia . Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Tilmouth, S. 2005. Citizenship as a Constitutional Concept: Singh v the Commonwealth of Australia and Raul v Bush, President of the United States”. Paper presented at the University of New South Wales Centre of Public Laws 2005 Constitutional Law Conference. http://www.gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/publications/papers/docs/2005/5_SydneyTilmouth.pdf (accessed July 20, 2009).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 285

Tommasello, A., C.P. Myers, L. Gillis, L.L.Treherne, L.L., and M. Plumhoff. (1999) Effectiveness of outreach to homeless substance abusers. Evaluation and Program Planning 22(3): 295-303.

Tomlinson, J. 1982. Social Work: Community Work Betrayed by Bureaucracy. Darwin: Wobbly.

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)

Trinder, L. 2000. Evidence Based Practice: A Critical Appraisal. Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Travers, P. 1998. Welfare dependence, welfare poverty and welfare labels Social Security Journal (2): 117-1282. http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=200003207;res=APAFT (accessed July 18, 2008).

UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 1994. Fact Sheet No. 21, The Human Right to Adequate Housing, June 1994, No. 21/ http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/479477400.html (accessed July 23, 2009).

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ (accessed July 20, 2009).

Valdverde, M. 2003. Law’s Dream of a Common Knowledge . New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Vanstone, A. 2003. Presentation to “Beyond the divide: 3rd National Homelessness Conference, 6-8 April, 2003, Brisbane: summary report”. Canberra: Australian Federation of Homelessness Organisations.

Vella, K and T. Cahir. 1990. The High Rise at a Glance Victoria: Victorian Ministry of Housing and Construction.

Victorian Government Department of Human Services. 2008. Applying for housing. http://www.housing.vic.gov.au/applying-for-housing (accessed September 9, 2009).

Vromen, A. 2003. Community activism and change: the cases of Sydney and Toronto. City and Community 2(1): 47-63 .

Walsh, P., C. Milford and L. Cain. 2003. More than Just a roof . Brisbane: QUT Cente of Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies

Walsh, T. 2003. Waltzing Matilda One Hundred Years Later: Interactions Between Homeless Persons and Criminal Justice System in Queensland, Sydney Law Review , 25(1):75-97. http://heinonline.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/sydney25 &id=1&size=2&collection=journals&index=journals/sydney (accessed January 29, 2004).

Walsh T. and C. Klease 2004. Down & Out? Homelessness & Citizenship. Australian Journal of Human Rights . http://www.austl:edu/au/journals.AJHR/2004/5/htm (accessed 20th July 2009).

Walsh, T. 2005. The Overruled and Underclass: The Impact of the Law on Queensland's Homeless People. University of New South Wales Law Journal , 28(1): 122-144.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 286 http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=200510489;res=APAFT (accessed July 20, 2009)

Ward, J. 2001a. Personal Homelessness and at the Level of the Nation State , Paper presented at the 2 nd National Housing Conference: Brisbane 24-26 October 2001.

Ward, J. 2001b. Owning the Problem: Our Communities, Our Homelessness . Paper presented at 2 nd National Housing Conference: Brisbane 24-26 October 2001. http://www.nationalhousingconference.org.au/past/nhc_2001/program_2001 (accessed 12 June 2008).

Waters, M. 1989. Citizenship and the Constitution of Structured Social Inequality. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 30(3):160-180l.

Watson, S.2000. Homelessness revisited: new reflections on old paradigms. Urban Policy and Research 18(2): 159-170. ISSN: 0811-1146 (accessed June 12, 2008).

Webb, S. and B. Webb.1927. English Poor Law History . United Kingdom: Green and Co.

Weekend Australian. 2008. Market truth trumps moral pressure, January 15, 2008, 2.

Weisberg, B. 2005. When Punishing Innocent Conduct Violates the Eighth Amendment: Applying the Robinson Doctrine to Homelessness and other Contextual Crimes” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 96(1): 329-365. http://heinonline.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jclc96&id= 1&size=2&collection=journals&index=journals/jclc (accessed 21 July 2009).

Weiss, C. H. 2001. What kind of evidence in evidence based policy? Third International, Inter-disciplinary Evidence-Based Policies and Indicator Systems Conference , University of Durham. http://www.cemcentre.org/Documents/CEM%20Extra/EBE/EBE2001/P284- 291%20Carol%20Weiss.pdf (accessed July 2, 2008)

Weller, P. 2005. Human Rights and Human Dignity: Inventing Transnational Principles of Governance . Proceedings of the Berlin Roundtable in Transnationality Conference. http://www.irmgard-coninx- stiftung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/archive/152%20Weller.pdf (accessed July 23, 2009).

White, M. and A. Hunt. 2000. Citizenship: Care of the Self, Character and Personality, Citizenship Studies , 4(2):93-116.

Whitlam, G. 1974. Policy Speech April 29, 1974 http://whitlamdismissal.com/speeches/74- 04-29_policy-speech.shtml (accessed July 20, 2008).

Williams, G. 1999. The Federal Parliament and the Protection of Human Rights Parliamentary Research Paper 20, 1998-1999. http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RP/1998-99/99rp20.htm (accessed July 23, 2009).

Wilson, T. and J. Day. 2001. Homeless Young People: Points of Intervention . Paper presented at 2 nd National Housing Conference: Brisbane 24-26 October 2001.

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 287

Wise, S. 1999. A Long Way from Home. Family Homelessness in the Current Welfare Context, Family Matters , Winter 1999. http://aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm/fm53br.pdf (accessed April 15, 2007).

Wond, D. 2007. Foucault Contra Habermas Knowledge and Power, Philosophy Today , Spring 2007 51(1): 3-16. http://proquest.umi.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/pqdweb?index=5&did=1256970591&Sr chMode=3&sid=2&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=124894 7337&clientId=14394&aid=2 (accessed July 30, 2009).

Wood, E. 2003. The National Homelessness Strategy. Parity 16(8): 4-6.

Wooster, M. n.d. The Forgotten Tocqueville: What he saw in 19th century England. http://www.bigeye.com/tocque.htm (accessed November 23, 2003).

Wright, B. 2001. Expectations of a Better World, Planning Australian Communities . Canberra: Royal Australian Planning Institute.

Wright, J. 1988. The Worthy and Unworthy Homeless. Society 25(5):64-66. http://www.springerlink.com/content/q3h874054l775576/ (accessed August 16, 2005).

Wright, S. E. 1993. Presidential Address Blaming the Victim, Blaming Society or Blaming the Discipline: Fixing Responsibility for Poverty and Homelessness, Sociological Quarterly 34(1):1-16. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1533- 8525.1993.tb00127.x (accessed 3 February 2008).

Wright, T. 2000. Resisting Homelessness: Global, national and local solutions. Contemporary Sociology 29(1):27-44 (accessed August 16, 2005).

Wright-Howie, D. 2003. Homelessness Strategies in Australia: Will They Make A Difference? In 3 rd National Homelessness Conference, Brisbane, Australia, April 2003. http://www.chp.org.au/public_library/items/2004/11/00009-upload-00001.doc (accessed July 23, 2005).

Wulff, M., J. Yates and T. Burke. 2001. Low rent housing in Australia 1986 to 1996: how has it changed, who does it work for and who does it fail? Canberra: Department of Family and Community Services. http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/vIA/lowrentreport/$file/LowRentHousin g.pdf (accessed April 4, 2005).

Yeend, P. 2000. Welfare Review, E-brief: Online Analysis and Social Policy Group http:www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/welfarebrief.htm (accessed May 28, 2008).

A Genealogy of the Problematic of Homelessness and the Homeless in Australia 288