1

SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA Analysing the South Australian Labor Party’s Social Inclusion Initiative By Fletcher Farrington

Abstract: This paper is a study of the new South Australian Labour Party’s Social Inclusion Initiative. The general policy direction is assessed in light of the unique pattern of multiple disadvantage in South Australia. Each policy component is examined separately, both in the context of Labor Party Policy generally, and their new Platform for Government specifically. Issues raised by the implementation of similar programs overseas are examined. In addition, research regarding social exclusion and related policy in Australia also is utilised to assess this new SALP initiative. A true assessment of the policy must wait until post-implementation.

INTRODUCTION In his address to the State Australian Labor Party Platform Convention on 14 October 2000, Mike Rann, leader of the opposition in South Australia, announced that there would be a Change for the Better. Within days of becoming Premier, he would establish within his office “a Social Inclusion Initiative to find real solutions to South Australia’s most serious social problems” (SALP 2000b). This initiative will be based on a program similar to that introduced by Tony Blair after the election win by Britain’s ‘New Labour’ party in 1997. It will represent a movement away from the mere treatment of symptoms. The complicated links between those symptoms will be addressed and solutions to the underlying causes will be found. The adoption of this policy will embrace more than just a “social justice scheme” (Advertiser 14 April 2001, p. 8).

As in Britain, party political reform will go hand in hand with this new social

agenda. In assessing the appropriateness and likelihood of success of such a policy, a number of questions must be asked. Can social exclusion be identified in South Australia? If so, does the extent of social exclusion in South Australia warrant explicit attention? Has the South Australian Labor Party (SALP) adopted a ‘useful definition’ of social

2 exclusion? Have similar approaches to tackling social exclusion proved successful and could that success be duplicated in the situation specific to South Australia? And are there other policy directions more appropriate for combating the unique range of social problems in South Australia?

SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA The SALP Social Inclusion Initiative will “provide opportunities for everyone in the state, regardless of income, circumstances or background” (Rann, quoted in Nine News 13 April 2001).

Is it necessary, therefore, to identify social exclusion as being present in

Adelaide? Indicators must be developed to track the progress of this initiative. Previous indicators of poverty and disadvantage cannot necessarily be relied upon to show the true extent of social exclusion. As such there is a strong emphasis on information gathering within the Social Inclusion Initiative, in recognition of the shortcomings of these previous indicators. Hence, there still is value in identifying the presence of social exclusion in South Australia. Socio-economic and spatial differentiation frequently has been identified as an issue for Adelaide. Terms such as social polarisation, locational disadvantage and multiple disadvantage have been adopted in discussions about the increasingly bad conditions in which Adelaide’s poor find themselves. The social polarisation debates highlight the growing economic differentiation between rich and poor in Adelaide (Baum & Hassan 1992; Forster 1986, 1991).

Locational disadvantage refers to access and

opportunity. In some outer suburbs the “deficiencies in physical and social infrastructure and inadequate access to jobs, training and education opportunities … [reduce the] … standard of living of those affected and exacerbat[e] other disadvantages they may face” (Fincher 1991, p.132). It can be “yet another compounding factor” in the multiplicity of problems faced by the urban poor (Forster 2000b, p.28). Locational disadvantage has been identified in Adelaide (Badcock 1994; Forster 1994,1999, 2000a,b).

3 These previous discussions about the conditions and causes of multiple disadvantage in Adelaide include many of the elements of social exclusion identified by Mike Rann’s Labor Party. Recent studies, however, have discussed the presence of social exclusion directly. While social exclusion was not identified in the outer south (Forster 2000a, p.54),

many of the conditions of exclusion were found to exist in parts of the

City of Playford, in the north of Adelaide (Forster 2000b, pp.23-5). Social exclusion has been identified in Hackham West, where its citizens are trapped in “an intergenerational cycle of poverty” aggravated by the stigmatisation of living in that suburb (Deslandes 1999, p.45). Similar findings have been made regarding the citizens of Salisbury North (van Deth 1999). Social exclusion also has been identified as a growing problem for Australia generally (Cappie Wood and Adcock in Background Briefing, 7 February 1999; Tanner 2000; Randolph & Judd 1999, 2000)

and especially for residents on the fringes

of our cities and for those who live in areas of public housing (Randolph & Judd 1999, p.4,9; Randolph & Judd 2000, p.93).

DEFINITIONS The similarities, identified by the South Australian Labor Party (SALP 2001, p.3), between their social inclusion initiative and that introduced by Tony Blair in Britain, are clearly evident in the definitions of social exclusion they adopt. Although not stated explicitly, a definition of social exclusion for South Australia can be extrapolated. Social exclusion is: A weakening of our social fabric indicated by complex and endemic problems of unemployment, lack of education and skills, poverty, sub-standard housing, family breakdown, low self-esteem, violence and poor health, that can cause social disintegration for individuals, families and entire regions. It arises from the combination of these problems and underlying causes and is exacerbated by a public sector that is unable or unwilling to address these problems and the links between them. In addition the SALP define the route back to inclusion. They will “rebuild a South Australian community which is fairer and more secure, [one] in which everyone at least, has the opportunity to share in the benefits, instead of just the burdens” (SALP 2001, p. 8).

4

This mirrors the now familiar definition of the British Social Exclusion Unit (Cabinet Office 2000).

Social exclusion is:

“A shorthand term for what can happen when people or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime, bad health and family breakdown.”

POLICY ANALYSIS This study must take into consideration that the publication of the Directions Statement for the Social Inclusion Initiative is recent. As such each policy component will be examined separately, both in the context of Labor Party Policy generally, and their new Platform for Government specifically. Issues raised by the implementation of similar programs overseas will be examined and research regarding social exclusion and related policy in Australia will be utilised to assess this new SALP initiative. Employment Employment regularly has been seen as the “best safeguard against social exclusion” (Council (Employment and Social Policy) 2000)

hence its acceptance by the British Labour

party as “central to … [their] … attack on social exclusion” (Mandelson and Harman in Lister 1998, p.219; also Background Briefing, 7 February 1999).

However, the SALP initiative

only makes passing reference to unemployment as one of the multitude of problems confronting the excluded. From the Social Inclusion Initiative, it appears the SALP can be subjected to the same criticism worn by the British Labour Party. Their focus is more on the creation of citizens fit for the work that exists, than on the creation ofwork fit for the existing citizens (Benn 2000, pp.313-4). This would be misguided given the compounding and depressing effects unemployment has on scholastic motivation (Barry 1998, p.13). It has been recognised that tackling unemployment requires demand-side as well as supply-side strategies (Lister 1998, p.220). Employment training will count for nothing if jobs are not provided in areas of high unemployment for the people who live in

5 those regions. This has been identified as an issue both for Britain (Lister 1998, p.220) and Australia (Randolph & Judd 1999, p.4). Examination of the SALP ‘Platform for Government’ reveals recognition of this issue. The central economic objective of the SALP is to increase employment through the establishment of “a single agency with responsibility for economic and employment outcomes” (SALP 2000c, pp.13,21). There will be an “active whole of government approach to job creation and retention … [with] … strong economic growth” through consultation with key players, and through public and private sector investment (SALP 2000c, pp. 5,13,124). Benn (2000, p.316) rightly asks the question however, “[h]ow can one talk about what poverty really means if part of one’s strategy is often to encourage people into lowwaged employment?” A social justice agenda requires the provision of “good quality work” (Lister 1998, p.220) to break both the cycle of exclusion and to provide greater equality. Similarly, the value of inclusion into a “profoundly unequal labour market” has been questioned (Lister 1998, p.221). Again this issue is not addressed in the Social Inclusion Initiative but is picked up in the Platform for Government document. The ultimate economic objective of the SALP is “full employment, meaning that all those wanting a job will be able to gain secure, worthwhile employment within a reasonable time, with real choice between full and part-time work” (SALP 2000c, p.13). Underlying Inequalities Economic restructuring in the face of globalisation has lead, in Australia, to significant and apparently detrimental changes to welfare provision and “public expenditure across all public services” (Randolph & Judd 2000, p.92; also Tanner 2000). The SALP also recognise these changes, as South Australia must be “well placed to rise to the challenges of the changing international economic environment” (SALP 2000c, p.5). They point out that the state Liberal government has cut essential public services such as health and education (SALP 2000c, pp.15,16). Kabeer (2000, p.95) talks of two types of remedies for social exclusion. They are ‘affirmative’ remedies which aim at correcting the outcomes, and ‘transformative’ remedies that “aim to correct for inequity by restructuring the underlying framework.” Many have questioned whether true inclusion is even possible without the implementation of transformative remedies (Benn 2000, p.313,6; Byrne 1999, p.78; Lister

6 1998, p.224; Percy-Smith 2000, p.2).

British Labour have been criticised for failing to

acknowledge “the many inequities of national and international capital” (Benn 2000, and for the “acceptance of gross inequalities as an unavoidable characteristic of

p.313)

developed economies” (Lister 1998, p.217). The question is, which remedy has the SALP chosen? Within the Initiative document the SALP clearly acknowledge the failure of past governments to “tackle the underlying causes of problems, or the conditions which created them in the first place” (SALP 2001, p.3). However there is no undertaking to address these underlying causes. Again we must turn to their Platform for Government for clarification. The extent of their commitment can be seen in the following extract (SALP 2000c, p.3,46): Our job is not to retreat from change but to manage it in a positive way in the public interest. That is quite a different philosophy from our opponents who have tried to steal the word ‘reform’ from us but really want harsh market forces to prevail in every aspect of our lives and to leave people and their families to cope alone. In contrast we intend to be an activist Labor Government which shares in the values of the many, not just the few … The best way to stop poverty and inequity is to work against the conditions which create them. While the SALP identify the inevitability and necessity of economic restructuring they are not accepting of the gross inequalities that result. Hence the recognition that “successful economic development requires the integration of economic and social policy” (SALP 2000c, p.14). Redistribution Underlying inequities of the global economic market can be dealt with in a variety of ways. As we have seen above, fixing the underlying causes is an admirable but unpopular goal, despite rhetoric to the contrary. Redistribution of wealth from rich to poor is seen as an alternative. However, this route has been criticised for simply compensating “people for their poverty, without tackling the causes” (Lister 1998, p.218).

Excluded people “will not have their long-term problems addressed by an

extra pound a week on their benefits” (Hattersley quoted in Lister 1996, p.218). The redistribution of wealth is both undesirable and not a state Labor concern and there is no plan to ‘retreat from change’. How then does the SALP plan to approach the issue of inclusion?

7 Equality of Opportunity It appears that the SALP has abandoned the ‘leftist’ goal of equality of outcome for that of equality of opportunity. This is evident in their definition of inclusion (above). The SALP goal is that “all South Australians should have access to a range of opportunities, regardless of what our parents earn or what part of the state we live in” (SALP 2000c, p.5).

Equality of opportunity “becomes the central goal, for reasons of

both social justice and economic efficiency” (Deacon 2000). Equality of outcome is not desirable. It is seen as capable of “stifling [the] human potential” (Guardian, 2 August 1997 in Lister 1998, p.217)

as exclusion and non-participation are rewarded. This human

potential is seen as necessary for economic development and the resulting growth in employment. While equality of opportunity creates an environment for growth and change, the excluded citizens must be equipped with the resources to utilise these opportunities. However, inclusion can only be achieved through the provision of resources AND through the removal of obstacles hindering inclusion. The SALP recognises the importance of resource provision (SALP 2000c, p.46). They are: [C]ommitted to using all of the resources of government and to working with South Australians, from all backgrounds and sectors to break through the cycle of poverty and despair that locks up our full economic and social potential Education and Poverty As we have seen, employment is one resource the SALP will provide. Their aim, to tackle problems of education, can be perceived as another resource for inclusion and enhanced employment prospects. Education will form the enduring and stable foundations for something “strong and lasting” (SALP 2001, p.6). They see the lack of education as being responsible for the creation of “community conditions of high youth unemployment, casual jobs and low incomes … of poor skills and high crime rates … of lousy housing and bad health … [and] of creeping poverty and family breakdown” (SALP 2001, p.6). Others agree (Mandelson quoted in Lister 1998, p.219; Barry 1998, p.13).

While the SALP acknowledge that a lack of education as responsible for poverty, others perceive the reverse. Poverty, as an obstacle to inclusion, can contribute to

8 “poor educational outcomes that condemn the next generation to extremely limited job opportunities” (Barry 1998, p.13; also Lister 1998, p.219; Benn 2000, p.316). Unexpectedly, the SALP takes this stance also. Poverty and inequality are “the chief blocks to South Australians enjoying the fruits of a dynamic, inclusive and just society” (SALP 2001, para 16). So, under Labor, poverty hinders education, and ALSO education is a resource to overcoming poverty. The emphasis on education in the Directions Statement would suggest that it is education rather than poverty that will be adopted as the primary route out of exclusion. As redistribution, through taxation and welfare, is primarily a federal rather than a state matter, the SALP have identified another ‘tool’ with which to reduce poverty and increase ability to utilise opportunity; public housing. The “fundamental commitment” of the SALP is “to improv[e] living standards” (SALP 2000c, p.13).

This will be achieved not only through halting the sell off of public

housing (SALP 2000c, p.73) but, more importantly, through the expansion of the community housing sector (SALP 2000c, p.72). In summary, the SALP stance is this: By way of better education and through the reduction of poverty, and improvements in living standards through the provision of public housing, people will be better equipped to take advantage of the new equality of opportunity. This position can be seen in Appendix A. Spatial and Sectoral Policy There is general consensus that Governments need to adopt “spatially targeted policies which aim to reinvigorate local economies and tackle social exclusion if they are to ameliorate those worst affected” (Watt & Jacobs 2000, p.14). This spatial aspect of the British Labour Party is the most heralded component of their social inclusion strategy. However, area based policy has been criticised. First, it presents an opportunity for broader issues of inequality to be glossed over, as neighbourhoods are identified as the only real areas of deprivation (Watt & Jacobs 2000, pp.18,25; also Hague et al 1999, p.295).

Such policies “run the risk of being labelled band-aids” (Forster 2000a,

p.12; 2000b, p.27).

Another concern is that the “exclusion discourse may also ghettoize

risk categories under a new label;” that those excluded areas could further suffer through stigmatisation (Silver 1994, p.540; also Peel 1995).

9

Badcock has been critical of the shift in public policy in Australia towards “targeting individual needs while neglecting the fate of places hurt by structural adjustment” (Badcock 1998, p.245).

Hence his claim that Australia is lagging behind Europeans in

reviving area-based policy (Badcock 1998, p.245). This is of more significance given that social exclusion has been identified both as a social and a spatial problem in Australia. Exclusion is concentrated in and exacerbated by specific areas but is not restricted to those areas (see especially Randolph and Judd 1999; also Tanner 2000). The acceptance of area based policy and the spatial aspects of exclusion in Australia might suggest enhanced value in the SALP adopting such an approach. However, there is no explicit evidence of spatially oriented policy within the Initiative. Again the Platform for Government clarifies the situation. The SALP recognises that exclusion is concentrated in communities (SALP 2000c, p.47). They have “the vision, the will and the faith in communities” (SALP 2000c, p.47). They will “[e]ncourage innovative local responses to strengthen communities and neighbourhoods” (SALP 2000c, p.47).

As such there is a clear spatial orientation to the SALP inclusion policy,

which should satisfy the concerns of Badcock. The goal of equality of opportunity for EVERYONE (SALP 20001, p.8)

should satisfy concerns that exclusion is not just a

neighbourhood phenomenon. Social Capital The previous section begins to address the next significant and valuable component of the Social Inclusion Initiative, that is, the recognition and utilisation of social capital. The SALP identify the “weakening of our social fabric” (SALP 2001, p.1) as a serious problem. They propose the strengthening of that social fabric as contributing to the solution to social exclusion (SALP 2001, p.1). Social fabric in this instance is simply “everyday language … [for] … social capital” (Bullen 1999, p.20). A ground-up and community oriented approach is deemed essential for the success of the SALP initiative (SALP 2001, p.6). The value of promoting growth in social capital as a remedy for social exclusion in Australia is widely accepted (Background Briefing, 7 February 1999; Bullen 1999; Foggo 1999; Percy-Smith 2000; Randolph & Judd 1999; SOA 1999).

10 Criticisms of this approach, coming out of Britain, highlight exclusion as a hurdle to participation which must first be surmounted (Benn 2000, p.310). Problems of poverty and education must be overcome to facilitate community involvement and the growth of social capital. A multi-sectoral and multi-agency approach, which includes working with excluded individuals, as promoted by the SALP (2000c, p.47) has also come under attack. The fear is that “hard-pressed” groups will be left with the burden of implementing this new policy (Benn 2000, p.312). We are yet to see whether such criticism is valid in South Australia (SALP 2000c, p.47). Federal and State Responsibilities A whole of government approach, by definition, must involve the whole of government. This involves inter-departmental coordination (SALP 2001, p.10) and the devolution of power to the lower tiers of government (SALP 2000c, p.56). As we have seen, this involves local council, and includes greater responsibility for community groups and individuals (SALP 2000c, p.47). However, cooperation, or at least commonality, must be secured between state and federal government. The SALP recognises this (2000c, p.21). They will work to: “achieve a commonwealth government commitment to a strategy and package complimentary to those proposed by South Australian Labor, to create jobs, reduce unemployment and improve the performance of the South Australian economy” Some consistency with federal Liberal policy direction is already evident. Tony Abbott, Federal Workplace Relations Minister, recently declared Liberal spending would be on community infrastructure and human capital and not on increasing welfare (Meet the Press, 10 June 2001). This is consistent with the aims of the Social Inclusion Initiative. In a recent address to Australian Labor Party members in Adelaide, Federal ALP Opposition Leader Kim Beazley announced his policy directions. These, too, compliment State Labor policy. He plans to “revitalise this great state” through addressing the “big issues” of education and unemployment (O’Brien 2001, p.3), achieved

by improving education and job training and the creation

of more jobs (O’Brien 2001, p.3).

11

CONCLUSION In addition to analysing the policy approach of the SALP, it is necessary to place this investigation in a wider context of social exclusion generally. Will the Social Inclusion Initiative be hindered merely through the adoption of a problematic concept as its theoretical basis? Only when the potential success or failure of this Initiative can be determined, can these general criticisms be applied. These general criticisms of social exclusion can be seen in Appendix B. Further studies also must be carried out in to the nature of social exclusion in South Australia, and indicators unique to South Australia must be developed. As well, an investigation of existing policy and programs nationally, which are within the scope of the ‘social inclusion’ paradigm, should be undertaken. The true value of the South Australian Labour Party’s Social Inclusion Initiative cannot be measured simply by looking at the objectives or ‘directions’ of that policy. A more thorough examination must be undertaken once SALP investigations have been completed and when specific policy content has been developed. Ultimately some significant time must pass after implementation before a final judgement of the initiative can be cast. That being said, the adoption of a social exclusion paradigm is a step in the right direction. The recent re-election of the British Labour Party is clear testimony to the fact that the SALP has chosen a desirable and popular path assuming, of course, that the principles of social exclusion are transferable to the unique patterns of multiple disadvantage in South Australia.

12

APPENDIX A: SALP MODEL OF INCLUSION

Equal Opportunity

Social Inclusion

Social Justice

Health Improvements

Educational Opportunity

Community Involvement

Goals

Policy Economic Growth

Take A Ground Up Approach

Manage Economic Restructuring

Education

Public Access

Jobs Growth

Poverty

Build Social Capital

Address Underlying Causes

Public Housing

Directions

Obstacles

13

APPENDIX B: GENERAL CRITICISMS OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION ·

Social exclusion is a term that can mean “all things to all people” (Atkinson 1998, p.13).

There are “as many theories of social exclusion as there are writers on the

subject” (Atkinson 2000, p.1039). ·

There is a consensus of opinion that social exclusion has been defined in terms that are vague and diffuse (Marsh & Mullins 1998, p. 754; Randolph & Judd 1999, p.5; Select Committee on Social Security 1998; Silver 1994, p. 532).

·

There is wide support for perceiving social exclusion as hard to define (Beland & Hansen 2000, p.54; Silver 1994, p.535; Spicker 1997, p.134).

·

Broad and vague definitions can render social exclusion useless. It becomes a “catch-all notion … a politically correct and ultimately meaningless mask” (Stroebel 1996, p.129).

·

Governments can “commit themselves to an imprecise, but nonetheless worthysounding, mission” (Marsh & Mullins 1998, p.751), without any widely accepted methods of identifying exclusion (Atkinson 2000, p.1042; Hague et al.1999, p.295).

·

Social exclusion is criticised for being “just another link in a chain of shifting terminology” (Kilmurray 1995).

·

“[T]here is no point in using the term simply as a new piece of jargon, a pretentious flavour-of-the-month synonym for the familiar grim reality we once called poverty.” (Seamus O’Cinneide in Kilmurray 1995).

·

Simply adopting the terminology, without adopting an adequate approach to tackle problems of social exclusion, will ultimately result in failure.

·

Long-standing and locally developed responses to local social problems may be replaced with a broadly irrelevant inclusive policy.

14

REFERENCES Atkinson, A.B. 1998, ‘Social Exclusion, Poverty and Unemployment’ in Exclusion, Employment and Opportunity, eds. A.B. Atkinson & J. Hills, Case Paper 4, January 1998, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics (online), available: http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/case/publications/casepapers.asp. Atkinson, R. 2000, ‘Combating Social Exclusion in Europe: The New Urban Policy Challenge, Urban Studies, vol. 37, pp. 1037-55. Background Briefing, Social Exclusion, 7 February 1999, ABC Radio (online), available: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ talks/bbing/stories/s18970.htm. Badcock, B. 1999, ‘Doing More With Less: Public Housing in the 1990s’, in Houses and Jobs in Cities and Regions: Research in Honour of Chris Maher, ed. K. O’Connor, University of Queensland Press, Brisbane. Badcock, B. 1998, ‘Forgotten Places, Excluded Citizens and the Rise of One Nation’, Urban Policy and Research, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 241-6. Badcock, B. 1994, ‘”Stressed Out” Communities: “Out-of-Sight, “Out-of-Mind?” Urban Policy and Research, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 33-46. Barry, B. 1998, Social Exclusion, Social Isolation and the Distribution of Income, Case Paper 12, August 1998, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics (online), available: http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/case/publications/casepapers. asp. Baum, S. & Hassan, R. 1992, ‘Economic Restructuring and Spatial Equity: A Case Study of Adelaide’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 151-72. Beland, D. & Hansen, R. 2000, ‘Reforming the French Welfare State: Solidarity, Social Exclusion and the Three Crises of Citizenship’, West European Politics, vol. 23, no. 1 (January 2000), pp. 47-64. Benn, M. 2000, ‘New Labour and Social Exclusion’, Political Quarterly, vol. 71, no. 3, pp.309-18. Brown, R. 1999, ‘Social Inclusion and People with Disabilities’, Pursuing Social Inclusion: The Proceedings of a Conference, Held July 1999, Social Options Australia, Adelaide, pp. 6-19. Bullen, P. 1999, ‘Social Capital: Family Support Services and Neighbourhood and Community Centres in New South Wales’, Pursuing Social Inclusion: The Proceedings of a Conference, Held July 1999, Social Options Australia, Adelaide, pp. 20-5. Byrne, D.S. 1999, Social Exclusion, Issues in Society Series, Open University Press, Buckingham.

15

Cabinet Office, UK, 2000, The Social Exclusion Unit Leaflet, Cabinet Office, London (online), available: http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/seu/index/march_%202000_% 20leaflet.htm. Council (Employment and Social Policy) 2000, Objectives in the Fight Against Poverty and Social Exclusion (online), available: http://europa.eu.int/comm/ employment_social/soc-prot/soc-incl/approb_en.pdf. Deacon, A. 2000, ‘CAVA and the Moral Reordering of Welfare Under “New Labour”’, Care Values and the Future of Welfare, Workshop Paper Number 10, ESRC Research Group on Care, Values and the Future of Welfare (online), available: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/cava/research/strand1/paper10alan.htm. Deslandes, T. 1999, ‘Case Study: Hackham West Community Centre’, Pursuing Social Inclusion: The Proceedings of a Conference, Held July 1999, Social Options Australia, Adelaide, pp. 45-7. Fincher, R. 1991, ‘Locational Disadvantage: An Appropriate Policy Response to Urban Inequities?’ Australian Geographer, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 132-5. Foggo, R. 1999, ‘Case Study: A Regional Strategy’, Pursuing Social Inclusion: The Proceedings of a Conference, Held July 1999, Social Options Australia, Adelaide, pp. 41-4. Forster, C.A. 1986, ‘Economic Restructuring, Urban Policy and Patterns of Deprivation in Adelaide’, Australian Planner, vol. 24, pp. 6-10. Forster, C.A. 1991, Areas of Multiple Disadvantage in Adelaide, Research Report 15, South Australian Planning Review, Adelaide. Forster, C.A. 1991a, ‘Restructuring and Residential Differentiation: Has Adelaide Become a More Unequal City?’, South Australian Geographical Journal, vol. 91, pp. 46-60. Forster, C.A. 1994, ‘Locational Disadvantage, Outer Suburbia and Urban Myths’, Urban Policy and Research, vol. 12, pp. 197-9. Forster, C.A. 2000a, Rising Levels of Disadvantage in Adelaide’s Outer South? A Case Study of Four Postcodes, study commissioned by the Strategic Planning and Policy Division, South Australian Department of Human Services, mimeo. Forster, C.A. 2000b, Socio-Economic Change in the City of Playford, 1991-96, study commissioned by the City of Playford, mimeo. Hague, E., Thomas, C. & Williams, S. 1999, ‘Left Out? Observations on the RGSIBG Conference on Social Exclusion and the City’, Area, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 293-6. Henley, M. 2000, Social Inclusion Initiative Makes Sense, Adelaide Central Mission (online), available: http://www.acm.asn.au/press/WebPR15.htm.

16

Hunter, B.H. 2000, Social Exclusion, Social Capital, and Indigenous Australians: Measuring the Social Costs of Unemployment, Discussion Paper 204 (online), available: http://www.anu.edu.au/caepr/2000/2000_204.html. Judge, K. 1999, ‘Tackling Social Exclusion: Is there a Third Way?’, An Inaugural Lecture Given at UKC on 21 May 1999, Discussion Paper 1542 (online), available: http://www.ukc.ac.uk/pssru/PDFfiles/DP1542.PDF. Kabeer, N. 2000, ‘Social Exclusion, Poverty and Discrimination’, IDS Bulletin, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 83-97. Kilmurray, A. 1995, ‘Beyond the Stereotypes’, Social Exclusion, Social Inclusion (online), available: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/dd/report2/report2b.htm. Levitas, R. 1998, The Inclusive Society? Social Exclusion and New Labour, MacMillan Press, London. Levitas, R. 1996, ‘The Concept of Social Exclusion and the New Durkheimian Hegemony’, Critical Social Policy, vol. 16, pp. 5-20. Lister, R. 1998, ‘From Equality to Social Inclusion: New Labour and the Welfare State’, Critical Social Policy, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 215-25. Marsh, A. & Mullins, D. 1998, ‘The Social Exclusion Perspective and Housing Studies: Origins, Applications and Limitations’, Housing Studies, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 749-59. Meet the Press, 10 June 2001, Channel 10 Television. O’Brien, S. 2001, ‘I Will Revitalise SA, Says Beazley’, Advertiser, 30 May 2001, p. 3. Peel, M. 1995, Good Times, Hard Times: The Past and the Future in Elizabeth, Melbourne University Press, Carlton. Percy-Smith, J. 2000, Policy Responses to Social Exclusion, Open University Press, Buckingham. Powell, M. 2000, The Hidden History of Social Citizenship, Department of Social and Policy Sciences, University of Bath (online), available: http://www.bath.ac.uk. Randolph, B. & Judd, B. 2000, ‘Community Renewal and Large Public Housing Estates’, Urban Policy and Research, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 74-104. Randolph, B. & Judd, B. 1999, ‘Social Exclusion, Neighbourhood Renewal and Large Public Housing Estates’, Paper presented to the Social Policy Research Centre Conference ‘Social Policy for the 21st Century: Justice and Responsibility’, University of New South Wales, 21-3 July 1999.

17 SALP 2001, Social Inclusion: Labours Social Justice Plan - Directions Statement, South Australian Labor Party, Adelaide. SALP 2000a, ‘A Change for the Better: Address - State Platform Convention, Media Release, 14 October 2000, South Australian Labor Party, Adelaide. SALP 2000b, ‘Rann Announces Social Inclusion Initiative: A First Act as Premier’, Media Release, 14 October 2000, South Australian Labor Party, Adelaide. SALP 2000c, Platform for Government, October 2000, South Australian Labor Party, Adelaide. Select Committee on Social Security 1998, ‘Examination of Witness: Helen Johnstone’, Minutes of Evidence, Tuesday 16 June 1998, House of Commons, UK. Silver, H. 1994, ‘Social Exclusion and Social Solidarity: Three Paradigms’, International Labour Review, vol. 133, no. 5-6, pp. 531-78. SOA 1999, Pursuing Social Inclusion: The Proceedings of a Conference, Held July 1999, Social Options Australia, Adelaide. Spicker, P. 1997, ‘Exclusion’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 35, no. 1, pp.133-43. Stroebel, P. 1996, ‘From Poverty to Exclusion: A Wage-Earning Society or a Society of Human Rights?’, International Social Science Journal, vol. 48, pp. 173-89. Tanner, L. 2000, ‘The Loneliness Crisis’, WorkSite Issues and Insights, ALP (online), available: http://www.labor.net.au/worksite/tanner2.html. The World Today, ‘Housing Signals Growing Gap between Rich and Poor’, 12:24, 29 November 1999, ABC Radio (online), available: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/ s69378.htm. van Deth, A. 1999, ‘Case Study: Addressing Social Exclusion from a State Government Perspective: Salisbury North Case Study’, Pursuing Social Inclusion: The Proceedings of a Conference, Held July 1999, Social Options Australia, Adelaide, pp. 27-33. Watt, P. & Jacobs, K. 2000, ‘Discourses of Social Exclusion - An Analysis of Bringing Britain Together: A National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal’, Housing Theory and Society, vol. 17, pp.14-26.