The article examines the representation of housing risk in contemporary Australian policy discourse through a critical analysis of two policy texts from the recent Victorian Coalition government (2010–2014). Drawing on governmentality theory and contemporary debates on neoliberalism, it examines how these policy texts perpetuate a discourse in which ‘housing risk’ is primarily understood as an issue for individuals to manage, rather than as an issue with predominantly structural roots. It then explores how this particular neoliberal representation of ‘housing risk’ supports policy solutions that ultimately responsibilise individuals through a narrow focus on education and employment as the pathways to independence in the private housing market. The article argues that this situation is problematic in a context of increasing rates of homelessness and diminished access to affordable housing across Australia.

No abstract

In a context of increasing welfare conditionality, governmental responses to homelessness in Australia continue to be influenced by neoliberal discourses of personal responsibility. This is reflected in their emphasis on individualised interventions and lack of attention to structural drivers of homelessness. Research examining these issues has primarily focused on policies and practices aiming to responsibilise individuals' conduct, and less so on how those with lived experiences view and apportion responsibility for homelessness. In recognition of this gap, this paper reports findings from a qualitative study examining the views of responsibility expressed by nine individuals with lived experiences of homelessness. Findings demonstrate that participants recognised their own responsibilities, yet also highlighted significant constraints on individual agency associated with being homeless and emphasised unmet responsibilities of governments. Our analysis demonstrates how participants' views contrast with neoliberal discourses of personal responsibility, and problematise notions of "fair reciprocity" on which they are premised. We argue their views can be interpreted as supporting alternative notions of shared responsibility for homelessness. These findings have implications for policy and practice and | 357 STONEHOUSE ET al.