Homelessness Case

Background

Habibis and Walter (2011) suggest a nation’s appetite for egalitarianism is influenced by morality and values and the answer to what inequality means, is one for the observer. Homelessness is an issue which challenges many global societies and may offer an example of what inequality means in a globalised world. United Nations Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN OHCHR) (2005) published a report highlighting there were 1.6 billion inadequately housed people across the world and an estimated 100 million who were completely homeless. UN OHCHR definition of homelessness is:

1. Primary homelessness (or rooflessness). This category includes persons living in streets or

without a shelter or living quarters;

2. Secondary homelessness. This category may include persons with no place of usual residence who move frequently between various types of accommodation; and persons usually resident in long-term ‘transitional’ shelters or similar arrangements for the homeless.

The sociological and psychological effects homeless people may experience include poverty or long-term unemployment, poor education, violence, mental health problems, disability and substance abuse. On Australia Census night 2011, 105,237 people were classified as being homeless (up from 89,728 in 2006). Remarkably the Indigenous people represented a disproportionate 25% of Australia’s homeless population (ABS, 2011, para. 10).

Theory

Census data may help contextualise Australia’s level of social inequality and identify where structure and agency might influence life chance and the precariousness of the lived life. Habibis and Walter (2011) suggest structure, status and access to opportunity may contribute towards Australia’s widening inequality gap. “Australia’s highly advantaged, highly skilled, educated and rewarded primary market is mirrored by an expanded insecure,