Skip to content

FaHCSIA home | NTER Review home

Appendix 1

The Homelessness Green Paper Submissions
PO Box 7442
Canberra BC ACT 2610

Dear Sir/Madam,

We make the following comments in relation to the Commonwealth Government’s (2008) Green Paper entitled, ‘Which Way Home? A New Approach to Homelessness’ . The Larrakia Nation Aboriginal Corporation (LNAC) provide critical frontline services to Indigenous (and increasingly non-Indigenous) Australians who are houseless and/or homeless in Darwin, living rough; known locally as staying in the Long Grass. The LNAC has an active research division with specialist expertise on ‘being houseless and homeless in Darwin’. The comments contained within this letter are therefore derived from a sound evidence base and a detailed knowledge of the subject matter.

The 1996 and 2001 Australian census data has confirmed that the rates of homelessness in the Northern Territory remain the highest in the country, with Indigenous Australian over-represented. These statistics, as shocking as they may be in a developed country such as Australia, have dramatically increased since July 2007. While the Federal Government’s 2007 intervention in remote Northern Territory communities may have initiated desired improvements in these communities, it has made a direct contribution to increasing the population size of people staying in Darwin’s Long Grass, without adequate shelter and the normal safeguards to protect and maintain individual’s health and life quality. There are in excess of 2000 people on any single night staying in the Long Grass – categorised as primary homelessness. Approximately 75% of this population is Aboriginal.

We must stress that staying in the Long Grass in Darwin is primary homelessness for all Australians. It is not homelessness for white Australians and simply ‘the camping lifestyle’ for black Australians. People, both black and white, are vulnerable to assaults on their health and wellbeing in all forms in the Long Grass. The ‘camping lifestyle’ interpretation may well reflect the desire for alternative accommodation structures and opportunities to engage in everyday socio-cultural processes when Aboriginal people visit Darwin. (It also points clearly to a growing and distinct lack of available, affordable and accessible European style accommodation). But it also reflects abject poverty. By romanticising and internalising living in the Long Grass as a ‘camping lifestyle’ that people choose is a notion that has perpetuated the minimalisation of the issues people are confronted with on a daily basis. This has legitimised inaction by governments and has allowed this ‘fourth world’ situation to go unchecked, addressed within the context of ‘anti-social’ behavior.

In the Northern Territory, the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Community Service’s Community Health have been instrumental in taking on the challenge of dealing with houselessness and homelessness in Darwin in ways that reflect a deeper understanding of the issues of Indigenous poverty. They have done this within the context of needing to balance the expectations of the community on managing anti-social behavior. They have supported innovative programs, such as Larrakia Nation’s Healthy Engagement and Assistance in the Long Grass (HEAL), the Larrakia Intervention and Transport Service (LITS) and the Community Harmony Outreach Program (CHOP). These programs aim to improve the life quality and health of Aboriginal people while they are in Darwin’s Long Grass through: being relevant to the life worlds of Indigenous people living in a culture of profound poverty; being practical and supportive; and by accepting the reality that Western style housing is unlikely to ever be available to this population in Darwin.

Continuing to develop national and state or territory policies that place emphasis on understanding homelessness as fundamentally a shelter issue, resolved through the provision of a house or unit, does little to ameliorate the poverty Aboriginal people endure in Darwin. At Larrakia Nation, we make the distinction between houselessness and homelessness. We do this because we have a deep understanding of the difference. We do this with the knowledge of what it means to be homeless for many Aboriginal Australians. We make the point that the Green Paper fails to effectively capture what homelessness means for Aboriginals, and instead defines the ‘problem’ as it is imagined by middle class white Australia. This omission and lack of insight is most likely linked to the nature of the consultation around the preparation of the Green Paper which appears to have overlooked contributions from specialists in the field and in particular, the expert individuals who experience the ‘problem’ literally in the field; the homeless people themselves staying in the Long Grass.

The situation for homeless and houseless Aboriginal people in Darwin has been exacerbated by the silo approach of our governments. A genuine commitment to resolving homelessness, as experienced as profound loss, grief, pain and ongoing intergenerational trauma, must be considered across all layers and sectors of government. It is of no surprise to us that the SAAP has received such a grim review. This outcome is not a reflection of those organisations that work tirelessly and with inadequate resources on the program. These organisations are literally too busy keeping people alive to make the necessary arguments that pave the way for a paradigm shift in public policy on this matter. The silo approach, in conjunction with the poor conceptualisation of the ‘problem’, has meant that in Darwin SAAP services struggle to be effective for Aboriginal homeless and houseless populations with a significant number of people with unreported unmet needs. If SAAP continues to be Australia’s primary response to homelessness, then Aboriginal Australians are in trouble. This is highly problematic if we are really serious about closing the gap between the unacceptable life expectancy and mortality rates among Australia’s first peoples.

We make the following specific comments on the Green Paper:

  1. In addition to focusing on prevention and early intervention, Australia must accept in the present global economy that houselessness and homelessness will continue. Today, more than 100 000 people are ‘homeless’. We stress the need to focus on the health and quality of individuals while they live without shelter and/or while they are homeless.
  2. The Australian government must engage experts in Indigenous homelessness as well as homeless and houseless people themselves if they are to develop policies that are effective. There may well be a need to have policies that are specific to this population.
  3. The Green Paper should re-consider the ‘problem’. The problem about homelessness for housed Australians appears to be the foundation for this Green Paper. This may lead to solutions that have little meaning or impact and which do little to bring about the desired changes sought by the individuals and families concerned. Re-conceptualising the problem will provide opportunities for creative new solutions. The ‘problem’ must be explored from a range of perspectives.
  4. Exploring what ‘home’ is in its many facets may assist policy makers to begin to understand what has been lost. Returning individuals home may not be such a good idea after all.
  5. The emphasis on quantitative research is tiresome. There have been numerous calls for research on the need for qualitative inquiry to inform this subject yet a gravitational pull back to counting the size of the ‘problem’. In Darwin, we do not need to keep quantifying the situation to realise it is profound. It is the qualitative inquiries that will provide a deeper understanding of the complexity of the problem. As Albert Einstein once said, “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted”.
  6. The experience of homelessness within three shelter oriented categories is unsatisfactory. Yes, shelter type shapes the experience but meaningful dialogue with homeless or houseless people will provide the depth of meaning our collective understanding and national policy so desperately needs. This will lead to solid and effective programs on the ground.
  7. The section dealing with risk factors, effects and causes of homelessness does not include the experience of multiple and profound traumatic events. While this experience is common among Indigenous and non-Indigenous homeless and houseless Australians, for Indigenous Australians the intergenerational trauma associated with colonisation and abject poverty is yet another layer. Our research and the research of others on this issue points to trauma as being one of the most profound dimensions of the homeless experience. The stigmatising processes of mainstream society are equally experienced as a key dimension to the homeless experience. Acknowledging homeless people simply as socially excluded does little to overcome the interacting impacts of trauma and stigma that shape the culture or everyday life worlds for this population. It is not quantitative data that will help governments understand how these dimensions function, but good solid qualitative inquiry.
  8. Mainstream society decides who will be stigmatised and how they will be stigmatised. In this regard, a multi-pronged approach is necessary; one which challenges the assumptions and negative stereotypes mainstream society members have about houseless, homeless and Aboriginal people. What is called for is an ideological shift in our dominant institutions, in particular, if we are to bring about improvements in life for Aboriginal homeless and houseless Australians. This will not be easy as curiously, research has shown that homeless people do not engender a sense of compassion among housed people, but rather they elicit hostility, fear and rage. This attitude is overt in Darwin among many housed people. As such, it is our view that the section on principles for change in the Green Paper must have a focus on challenging the negative mainstream perceptions that perpetuate the cycles of social exclusion.
  9. It is our view that the SAAP clearly needs to be properly resourced and re-developed for delivery so that it integrates all layers and sectors of government. The foundation, to which policy has been developed, however, remains shaky, particularly where Indigenous Australians are concerned. It was clearly stated at the public forum in Darwin that the government was not wed to the Green Paper. If that is indeed the case, we call for a truly consultative process to begin the ‘re-think’ on homelessness in this country.
  10. Should the above request for a paradigm shift be too ambitious, we suggest including a special category for Indigenous Australians if option1 in the Green Paper is favoured. In the event option 3 is adopted, we reiterate the issues around stigma and stress that the barriers for homeless and/or houseless individuals to accessing mainstream services are multiple and real. By placing homeless services in the mainstream, we will create more barriers for homeless people. In doing so, the role of the non-government sector in facilitating access to ordinary services will increase exponentially – yet we feel confident that funding will not increase accordingly. This approach makes a mockery of the notion of social inclusion for homeless people.

We are happy to explore these issues with you further and thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Green Paper.

Dr Catherine Holmes
Principal Researcher
Research Division
Larrakia Nation Aboriginal Corporation

27th June, 2008

Return to top

Cover Letter