Analysing Homelessness In Australia

Analysing blotlessness In AustraliaOver the past few decades, mechanisms of tender riddance and social control give made it increasingly hard for Australias dispossessed. Many texts hash out the place of defining takelessness and it is now widely accepted there argon several different kinds. Here, I will be talking in the main about Primary rooflessness, which is excessively known as sleeping near, where large number sleep in cars, parks or other ordinary infinites (Which room al-Qaeda? 2008 18). On average around 105,000 raft are unsettled in Australia each night and around 15% of these are rough sleeper (The Road Home 2008 3). The majority of homeless slew list fiscal difficulty, domestic violence, family breakdown or substance abuse as the main causes of their homeless status (Which counsel Home? 2008 20). Homelessness remains a particular problem among Australias Indigenous people, who are oer represented in their use of homeless services in all states an d territories (Which way Home? 2008 20).darn homelessness it self is non illegal in Australia, umpteen an(prenominal) acts committed by the homeless are, such as world urination, public drunkenness and the self-discipline of illegal drugs. Criminalization of the homeless occurs because these people want the private space in which to engage in these behaviours. Governments assume that by removing the homeless from public spaces that they are reducing crime and creating safe streets for the constabulary abiding public. However, as illustrated above, the crimes the homeless commit do not generally hurt others or damage appropriatety. They are breaking specific laws that have been created by the giving medication which are enforced to exclude certain groups of society from specific public spaces, notably the spaces that the wealthy inhabit.Criminalizing the homeless for behavior that is unavoid fitting in their situation is not simply poor public indemnity it also places ex tra stress on the criminal justice system.Criminalizing the homeless also leaves the law enforcement officials to deal with related issues, such as issues such as psychic illness and alcoholism (citation). Alcoholism is an issue that is common among the homeless universe and it is a condition that often intensifies as a result of organism homeless. Criminalizing the homeless for being drunk on the streets does not treat the problem, nor does it instigate the police in cleaning up the streets. It is often found is that homeless alcoholics use rehabilitation centres as shelter services, but have smaller intention of treating their addiction (Wilhite 1992 190). This indicates that the provision of suitable house is a essential to treating alcoholism. one time suitably housed, alcoholics have an increased chance of using alcohol rehabilitation services effectively. However, as suitable housing becomes increasingly scarce, the homeless are released from the justice system and back on to the street, where the cycle is because repeated.Homelessness has also increased significantly among the mentally ill in new-made decades. This has been attributed to discontinuity in mental health services where soulfulnesss are transferred from an institutional to companionship living (Conover et al. 1997 256). This burden of care has shifted from mental hospitals to the community however, development of housing and community services has not kept up with the demand (Greenblatt 1992 49). The solution here is that many of Australias mentally ill have ended up are end up on the streets and are criminalized for behaviours that are symptoms of their illness. Once again, nobody benefits from the existing system. Our mentally ill are left untreated and our criminal justice system gets increasingly clogged with cases of minor offences that have harmed no one.Debate surrounding the causes of homelessness often relates to two factors the first are socio-structural factors, whic h are concerned with changing comminute markets, poverty, the housing system, and the nature of the benefit state (Greenhalgh et al. 2007 643). The second are laissez-faire(a) and psychological factors that reflect individual agency, including alcohol dependence, substance abuse or social and behavioural problems (ibid). While it is now widely agreed by researchers that homelessness is a process where these factors trustfulness and contribute to an individuals risk, this view does not appear to reflect the situation as portrayed by the media.In her Australian study, Carole Zufferey found that media representations of the homeless were powerfully influenced by conservative agendas that emphasised individual responsibility (Zufferey 2008 359). Media representations generally urinate deserving and undeserving homeless and focus more on individualist causes than structural ones (Zufferey 2008 359). As the media play a key role in shaping public chthonianstanding of social issues, these attitudes are often share by the Australian public.A perception common in contemporary Australia is that homelessness is a lifestyle choice and that homeless people choose not to take advantage of services that are available to them. This sort of intellection was demonstrated recently when Opposition leader Tony Abbott was asked whether he would continue with the rudd Governments goal of halving homelessness by 2020 (The Road Home 2008 viii). In his response Abbott quoted the bible, from the evangel of Matthew The poor will al looks be with us in an stew to demonstrate that the government cannot assist those who choose to be homeless (citation). This blatantly illustrates his lack of understanding of the issue, one that is shared by many Australians. As Morse (1992 13) puts itThe choice to become homeless is not an affirmation of an pattern lifestyle, but a means to obtain a sense of self control and dignity when faced with a lack of meaningful, safe or viable living alte rnatives.Australians seem to have a position of ideologic constructions surrounding the homeless, that they are lazy, dirty and untrustworthy, for example. These assist the processes and practices that exclude homeless people from social life and limit their ability to enroll in society.When examining a widespread, public issue such as homelessness, it is classic to look at the confabulations that are at play, when policy is being implemented. Discourse refers to the rules, systems and procedures which inspection and repair erect and form knowledge about the world (Hook 2001 522). The rules of discourse govern the way that a topic can be meaningfully talked and thought about. It is therefore linked to the exercise of power, because it ensures the reproduction of the social system, through forms of selection, exclusion and domination (Young 1981 49 Hook 2001 522).In relation to homelessness there are many conflicting and overlapping discourses to be taken into account. Here, I will grok discourses relating to neo liberalism, personal responsibility, individualism and obligation in relation to homelessness policy.In policy responses, there is often a common sense supposal that all citizens aspire to be competitive, independent, self responsible, hardworking and morally sovereign individuals (Zufferey 2008 362). In Australia, there is an unspoken assumption that these are the qualities needed for citizenship. This is evident in that the overall heading in many policies and services is for individuals to be governed into a state where they can self-regulate their behavior without the need for direct discourse by the state (Gilbert 2008 109).In 2008, two policy papers were created by the Australian government in response to the current situation. The first was Which counselling Home A New Approach to Homelessness which aimed to examine a range of perspectives on homelessness in order to inform further policy (Which Way Home? 2008 8). From this, a secon d paper was actual, authorise The Road Home A National Approach to Reducing Homelessness which outlined the governments strategies for the future. Throughout twain of these texts, there is the heavy promotion of moving people into the paid labour market, so they can be independent members of society. In Which Way Home, it states persistent long-term employment should be the ultimate goal for most . . . . With proper support, people can become more resi falsehoodnt and better able to manage their personal, financial and housing needs, and gain the confidence and skills they need to participate in mainstream economic and social life. (Which Way Home 2008 14)While the aim of many of the proposed programs is to support clients by improving their independent living skills, they are still deeply embedded with assumptions about control, surveillance, containment, independence and self-determination (Greenhalgh 2007 646).It is important to question who benefits from these programs and wh ose interests are being served. Is it the homeless who will benefit from these policies, or are they implemented for the bourgeoisie, who feel threatened by the presence of others who do not conform to the status quo? Policy responses such as those listed above may also be seen as an attempt to reduce expectations of what the state will provide by promoting the ideas of the personal responsibilities required for citizenship (Beresford et al. 1996 179).Neo liberalist discourse appears to be pervasive throughout the proposed policies which are littered with management orientated methods and techniques (Anker 2008 37). It can be seen that such methods are being implemented in the interest of efficiency and productivity, as opposed concern and assistance for people who have a range of problems and lack the tools that allow them to participate in social life. There is a sense that these individuals are seen as objects of policy as opposed to people who need care and resources. Policy ma kers also seem unaware that these people often do not lack the competence to participate in society however their participation is undermined by dominant culture and ideologies that prevent them from doing so (Beresford et al. 1996 193).Legitimation crisisA piteousage of affordable housing has been identified as a major change factor to homelessness in Australia. Increased house prices and rentals have put financial pressure on both individuals and families and some find they are futile to afford their current living arrangements.Between 2002 and 2007, the number of families seeking assistance from homeless services in Australia increased by 30 per cent (Which Way Home 200812). This suggests that policy responses to housing in Australia are under developed and indicates that affordable housing for those in low income brackets is in extremely short supply.The government played a key role in creating this shortage by reducing its investment in public housing over recent years. It is estimated that between 1994 and 2004 government funding for the Commonwealth State admit Agreement (CSHA) fell by 54 per cent in genuinely terms (Judd et al. 2005 246). This demonstrates where the governments priorities lie. Instead of investing in housing, which would assist the homeless and many low income earners, they continue to reduce their spending in this area. Certainly in the Howard years, this could be seen as a strategy to create a cipher surplus, which could then be distributed via tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy.Homelessness is sometimes viewed as a complex problem attributed to the clients, not to the systems they have access to (Conover et al. 1997 258). However, as demonstrated, policies and infrastructure which aim to reduce its prevalence are often under developed, impractical and show a lack of insight into the lives of those they are designed to help. Even if the infrastructure was developed, it wouldnt stop the government and the pub lic acting on pre-existing discourses that say that homeless people are not entitled to participate in societyNumerous and diverse factors contribute to homelessness in Australia. Homelessness has been maintained in the past due to ideological constructions that promote processes of exclusion (Morse 1992 14) and by the absence of policy responses committed to reducing its prevalence.Future challenges lie in the further development of existing policies and integration of services and programs that unneurotic can provide comprehensive and innovative solutions to homelessness. Further understanding of the issue through research will also contribute to better policies and help to address practices that lead to social exclusion.16 February, 2010Bible bashing the homeless, Abbott styleMICHAEL PERUSCOFebruary 16, 2010http//www.smh.com.au/ intuitive feeling/bible-bashing-the-homeless-abbott-style-20100215-o2tj.html